The rights of illegal immigrants. Wait, do people who cross into a country illegally without proper documentation, do they even have any rights? Surely they are not allowed to share the same kind of privileges and liberties that a legal immigrant or a native citizen are allowed to exercise and celebrate.
The other night I put on my favorite cable news channel and the news story that caught my interest was of a man, who entered the United States illegally, suing the United States government because he felt that his basic rights were being violated. The basic right he was fighting for was the right to marry his U.S. citizen fiancé. Read the article at http://www.timesleader.com/news/20070427_27marry_tmb_ART.html for more details about this case.
This immigrant marriage case is very common in today’s society. It’s nothing new that the issue of marriage has been on the “list of things to do” for lawmakers all over the nation with regards to same sex marriage. You have probably heard tales of people crossing the border so that they are able to become a legal U.S. resident or citizen and soon after their commitments of love are suddenly broken. Can illegal immigrants legally marry in the United States?
To find out about your local area’s procedures of marriage between a U.S. citizen and an alien, the best thing to do is call your county clerks. These procedures vary area to area and different documentation may be required to acquire a legal marriage certificate.
According to the United States Immigration Support website (www.usimmigrationsupport.org/), a spouse of a U.S. citizen is able to apply for a green card. “Every year over 450,000 thousand United States citizens marry foreign-born individuals and petition for them to obtain a permanent residency (Green Card) in the United States. Spouses of U.S. citizens are considered "immediate relatives" under immigration laws, therefore they are excluded from all numerical quota limitations. This means that there is an unlimited number of Green Cards available to foreign nationals who marry U.S. citizens.” Keep in mind, however, these are aliens/foreign nationals who have gone through the proper procedures and are legal immigrants and did not enter the U.S. through illegal means.
On the other hand, what happens to an illegal alien seeking marriage? According to WikiAnswers.com:
“An illegal alien does not automatically become legal through marriage. The US citizen spouse must initiate the process, which could take anywhere from a few months to a few years. If the illegal alien entered the US without inspection (snuck in) s/he will not be able to become legal without leaving and once s/he leaves, s/he will have the 10 year bar to deal with. The spouse will have to file for a waiver of that bar.”
In 2005 the House of Representative debated the Immigration Reform Bill. In this bill there was a section about immigrants and marriage that was discussed by Congressman Gary Miller.
“Penalties for Marriage: Sets penalties — including fines, up to 10 years imprisonment, or both— for knowingly misrepresenting a marriage in an immigration document or during an immigration proceeding, and provides fines and sentences of between two and 20 years for individuals who enter into two or more marriages to evade immigration laws, as well as those who facilitate or arrange such marriages.”
There are efforts in Congress to modify marriage laws that many believe are necessary and a way to help solve the negative effects of illegal immigration inside the United States. Marriage should be protected for all U.S. citizens and immigrants, but this is a right that should not be granted to those who illegally immigrant into the United States and expect to then be recognized as legal residents.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
A different issue: Same-Sex Marriage
As part of the requirement to successfully complete my blog, I have chosen two articles from a book called Same Sex Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate by Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum.
“The Bells Are Ringing…Marriage, Marriage, Everywhere” by John O’Sullivan
In this article, John O’Sullivan from the National Review, Inc., discusses his viewpoints against same sex marriage. O’Sullivan identifies various elements of the politics of culture. The first of these elements of culture are the private and public sectors that are affected by same sex marriage. O’Sullivan refers to the public institution of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, the New York Times, the social movements of the 1964 Civil Right Act, family, and the identity of the entire Western world. With regards to the forms of the elements of the political culture, O’Sullivan relates to the “construction and naturalization of discourses” of the ideology of gay marriage. He argues that there will be two revolutions of the discourse of marriage: there must be a religious revival and limitations placed on judicial review.
“A Christian Case for Same-Sex Marriage” by Jack McKinney
In his article, “A Christian Case for Same-Sex Marriage,” Jack McKinney is arguing in support for gay marriage. His main arguments lie within various elements. First, McKinney refers to a Virginian statute that at one point in history forbade interracial marriage. He believes there is a discrimination against sexual minorities. He argues that marriage is a civil right and he blames the church for the denial of such a basic civil right. He refers to the biblical lives and messages of Jesus Christ and Paul the apostle to show that . . . . .. To summarize even more briefly, McKinney is taking a very religious viewpoint on the “yea” side of the line to same sex marriage. He is co-opting the religious claims of the orthodox and making them liberal.
The dominant frame here is that of a religious argument. One is saying that there must be a religious revival to sanctify marriage within the political system while the other is arguing that in religion there is no discrimination.
McKinney makes several references to the past and religion, citing the Bible. For example, Jesus and Paul symbolized equality and non-discrimination of all types of people during their lifetime, which is also prophesized in the Bible. He relates this religious view from the past to today’s struggle of discrimination against race, ethnicity, and, now, sexual orientation.
O’Sullivan offered a solution to the debate of same sex marriage. He suggests that society and government will then have created three recognized types of “marriage” institutions. The first is the traditional church marriage that is not from the government and only between a man and a woman. The second type of institutional marriage is a civil marriage, which would be open to any combination of genders between two people. The third result from legislation would be household partnerships that would permit any number of people to have a partnership. O’Sullivan suggests that these are the results if “gay marriage is to be forced on us by nondemocratic bodies,” meaning from the changing of societal norms.
So what is the moral decision to make on this issue? Is marriage defined in religious terms only between a man and woman or is it another forum where discrimination exists? It is obvious that in today’s society there is a changing marriage trend additional to the debate of same sex marriage. Divorce rates are increasing and the traditional family ideal is evaporating as there are more and more single mothers raising their children. The problem we face is the difficulty of defining what is a marriage and there must be pressure placed upon legislatures to conitue the fight to define marriage between a man and woman. Otherwise, the conventional term of marriage must be abolished. I foresee an eventual deterioration of what marriage is suppose to be and the family.
“The Bells Are Ringing…Marriage, Marriage, Everywhere” by John O’Sullivan
In this article, John O’Sullivan from the National Review, Inc., discusses his viewpoints against same sex marriage. O’Sullivan identifies various elements of the politics of culture. The first of these elements of culture are the private and public sectors that are affected by same sex marriage. O’Sullivan refers to the public institution of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, the New York Times, the social movements of the 1964 Civil Right Act, family, and the identity of the entire Western world. With regards to the forms of the elements of the political culture, O’Sullivan relates to the “construction and naturalization of discourses” of the ideology of gay marriage. He argues that there will be two revolutions of the discourse of marriage: there must be a religious revival and limitations placed on judicial review.
“A Christian Case for Same-Sex Marriage” by Jack McKinney
In his article, “A Christian Case for Same-Sex Marriage,” Jack McKinney is arguing in support for gay marriage. His main arguments lie within various elements. First, McKinney refers to a Virginian statute that at one point in history forbade interracial marriage. He believes there is a discrimination against sexual minorities. He argues that marriage is a civil right and he blames the church for the denial of such a basic civil right. He refers to the biblical lives and messages of Jesus Christ and Paul the apostle to show that . . . . .. To summarize even more briefly, McKinney is taking a very religious viewpoint on the “yea” side of the line to same sex marriage. He is co-opting the religious claims of the orthodox and making them liberal.
The dominant frame here is that of a religious argument. One is saying that there must be a religious revival to sanctify marriage within the political system while the other is arguing that in religion there is no discrimination.
McKinney makes several references to the past and religion, citing the Bible. For example, Jesus and Paul symbolized equality and non-discrimination of all types of people during their lifetime, which is also prophesized in the Bible. He relates this religious view from the past to today’s struggle of discrimination against race, ethnicity, and, now, sexual orientation.
O’Sullivan offered a solution to the debate of same sex marriage. He suggests that society and government will then have created three recognized types of “marriage” institutions. The first is the traditional church marriage that is not from the government and only between a man and a woman. The second type of institutional marriage is a civil marriage, which would be open to any combination of genders between two people. The third result from legislation would be household partnerships that would permit any number of people to have a partnership. O’Sullivan suggests that these are the results if “gay marriage is to be forced on us by nondemocratic bodies,” meaning from the changing of societal norms.
So what is the moral decision to make on this issue? Is marriage defined in religious terms only between a man and woman or is it another forum where discrimination exists? It is obvious that in today’s society there is a changing marriage trend additional to the debate of same sex marriage. Divorce rates are increasing and the traditional family ideal is evaporating as there are more and more single mothers raising their children. The problem we face is the difficulty of defining what is a marriage and there must be pressure placed upon legislatures to conitue the fight to define marriage between a man and woman. Otherwise, the conventional term of marriage must be abolished. I foresee an eventual deterioration of what marriage is suppose to be and the family.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)