BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
AJR 15 (De Leon)
As Amended August 25, 2009
Hearing Date: June 10, 2010
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
KB:jd
SUBJECT
The Uniting American Families Act
DESCRIPTION
This measure would urge the Congress of the United States to
include the Reuniting Families Act and the Uniting American
Families Act in comprehensive immigration reform or to pass, and
President Obama to sign, the Uniting American Families Act as
stand-alone legislation and support the removal of legal
barriers to immigration by permanent same-sex partners.
BACKGROUND
On February 12, 2009, the Uniting American Families Act (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). In addition, on June 4, 2009,
Representative Mike Honda (D-CA) introduced the Reuniting
Families Act (H.R. 2709), which includes UAFA as one component
of a larger immigration reform package.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
This resolution 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.
This resolution states that federal law does not currently
recognize permanent same-sex partners as family members for
immigration purposes, including same-sex partners that are
(more)
AJR 15 (De Leon)
Page 2 of ?
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.
This resolution states that United American Families Act (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. This
resolution further notes that the UAFA has 115 cosponsors in the
U.S. House of Representatives and 20 cosponsors in the U.S.
Senate.
This resolution states that the Reuniting Families Act (RFA),
introduced in 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.
This resolution recites the definition of "permanent partner" as
specified by the UAFA.
This resolution 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.
This resolution states that the UAFA would bring federal
immigration law in line with 19 other countries that currently
recognize same-sex partnerships for immigration purposes.
This resolution 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.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The author states:
AJR 15 (De Leon)
Page 3 of ?
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 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.
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 percent 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 that 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.
AJR 15 (De Leon)
Page 4 of ?
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.
2. Definition of "Permanent Partner" in the UAFA
The UAFA would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
to add, where appropriate, the phrase "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 recognizable under the INA; and (e)
is not a first, second, or third degree blood relation of that
other individual.
3. UAFA does not appear to conflict with the Defense Of
Marriage Act
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C. Section 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.
The DOMA further provides that the word "spouse" refers only to
a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Opponents of this resolution contend that the UAFA seeks to make
an exception to the DOMA and undermine the DOMA protection of
traditional marriage. However, the UAFA does not appear to
violate or 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 immigration laws. Therefore, in urging Congress to pass
AJR 15 (De Leon)
Page 5 of ?
the UAFA, the California Legislature would arguably not be
urging the adoption of legislation that conflicts with existing
federal law on same-sex marriage under DOMA.
4.Suggested technical amendments
Committee staff notes that S. 424 currently has 23 cosponsors
and H.R. 1024 currently has 123 cosponsors. This resolution
states that the measures have 20 and 115 cosponsors
respectively. The following suggested amendments would insert
the most recent number of cosponsors for each federal measure.
Suggested Technical Amendments
On page 2, line 13, strike "115" and insert "123"
On page 2, line 14, strike "20" and insert "23"
Support : Anti-Defamation League; Asian Pacific American Legal
Center of Southern California; Asian Communities for
Reproductive Justice; California Communities United Institute;
City of West Hollywood; Dolores Street Community Services;
Inland Counties Stonewall Democrats; Lavender Youth Recreation
and Information Center; Los Portales Pharmacy; Love Exiles
Foundation; Marriage Equality USA; National Center for Lesbian
Rights; Our Family Coalition; Out4Immigration; Planned
Parenthood Affiliates of California; San Francisco Lesbian Gay
Bisexual Transgender Community Center; Stonewall Democratic Club
of Sacramento; The Women's Building; 14 individuals
Opposition : Capitol Family Resource Impact
HISTORY
Source : Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality
California
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : AJR 60 (Lieber, Chapter 192, Statutes of
2004) urged the President and Congress of the United States to
adopt the Permanent Partners Immigration Act of 2003 (a
precursor to the UAFA), which would have added the phrase "or
permanent partner" to sections of immigration law that provide
immigration rights to legally married couples, and would have
AJR 15 (De Leon)
Page 6 of ?
allowed gay and lesbian citizens to sponsor their partners as
United States residents. Ultimately, that proposed 2003 federal
legislation was not enacted into law.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 7, Noes 3)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 45, Noes 29)
**************