You are here: Home » Commentary » A Gay Girl's View » UAFA Revisited by Activists – Failure to Engage Opposition

UAFA Revisited by Activists – Failure to Engage Opposition

5-28-2010 -  Melanie Nathan;

Calling for a New Direction: Marrying DREAM ACT to UAFA

Grassroot sloggers amount to a handful, a small dedicated group that has done an enormous amount of work with no resources at hand.  This group of people, some under the Out4Immigration banner and others, unpaid independent activists, have fought hard for the ideal of one basic right – EQUALITY – and in this instance equality under the immigration law.

Gays and Lesbian spouses/partners in the USA cannot sponsor foreign born partners for immigration to the USA, commensurate with that very right, freely exercised, by different-gender couples.

Contextually, this fight has been going on for well over a decade and has a history of Bills introduced, none of which garnished as much traction as the Bill introduced by Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York,  last year, The Uniting AMERICAN Families Act. (UAFA)

While on the path to sponsorship and at a time where there were already over 100 co sponsors of the House Bill as well as a significant number of Senators in support, a case occurred in Pacifica, California that brought media and mainstream attention to the issue and the severity of its inequities.

Senator Dianne Feinstein’s introduction of Private Bill #867 into Congress, in support of Shirley Tan’s plight, spurred great LGBT ally Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) into action and the first ever Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for UAFA was held on on June 3^rd 2009.  This together with a ‘friendly’ and ‘ LGBT rights promising President’,  Democratic majority in Congress opened the door for the real possibility of greater sponsorship for UAFA and immigration equality for LGBT permanent partners. (Shirley Tan’s moving testimony at the SJC can be seen and heard here.)

However at that June 03, critical  juncture – instead of seizing the opportunity, a small organization known as Immigration Equality, purporting ownership tantamount to domain in this arena of  LGBT equality rights, decided with a lobby to some democratic members of Congress, that UAFA could never get the traction it needed as a stand-alone bill in Congress and figured that we would be better off by tying UAFA into Comprehensive Immigration reform, which they asserted was imminent as far back as June of last year.

The more they advocated and the more they pushed for LGBT inclusion in CIR, the more bullets they put in the toe of UAFA as stand alone legislation.   This has been covered extensively in my bi-national column here on the LGR site.

Organizations were led by Immigration Equality ORG to believe they had the goods to deliver; and in their advocacy they changed strategy, seeking UAFA’s inclusion in immigration reform, while failing  to do any real due diligence, other than to canvass a few representatives in Congress and the Senate.

They also scoped and spoke to a few Latino organizations for support, but failed to take real stock of the impossible task ahead.  Soon everyone was equating OUR stand alone ‘equality bill’ with the BIG comprehensive Immigration reform picture.

They sauntered through the Health Care debacle, watching the Democrats fall like flies to political fear, costing the American people ‘The Public Option, ‘ and not for one minute did this self appointed threesome of strategists pay attention to how this would impact immigration reform in the future.

Health Care resulted in Immigration Reform, and not its new hopeful appendage, UAFA, taking a backseat, only to show up now in a much more aggressive anti immigration climate, to wit – Arizona!

Did the genius of Immigration Equality anticipate this?   Probably not and they should have known better.   But when things happen that one does not anticipate, it is an opportunity for leadership to get out the strategy thermometer and check the temperature.  What are the facts behind this story?  Accountability and transparency apparently not in the  Immigration Equality Lexicon.

Failure in transparency and unwillingness to involve more than a handful,  in a decision so momentous, sets Immigration equality up now for having to take responsibility especially having claimed full ownership to the so-called strategy.  At the very least,they ought to seek  external advice from the community, especially the bi-national community, which happens to be the true owners of the rights at stake.  Perhaps Rachel Tiven could have placed a call to Kate Kendell at  NCLR and to others,  and called for a collection of brains to re assess the picture.

So now in the midst of hailing Congressman Gutierrez for finally coming on board and Senators Schumer, Reid et al for the  (mere) framework for Comprehensive immigration reform, and a whole year later – we have indeed put UAFA to bed. Why? Because if we try and advocate for a stand alone UAFA, any representative who is not asleep at the wheel – will simply tell us to wait.  Guess what? Another year will go by and the balance in Congress will change and we will be back to square one, while continuing  to foster the banishment of our LGBT married and partnered bi-national citizens and residents, some  into exile, detention, and unnecessary risky asylum proceedings. Even Shirley Tan remains at great risk!

Yesterday I received information from an activist whom some of you may know as TIFF; and he says “I’m just back from “jail for CIR,” but the talk is edging toward stand alone bills for Ag-Jobs and the Dream Act given the Republicans flat out opposition to anything Obama wants to do.  This means we might consider focusing more on UAFA as a stand-alone again as well.”

Hallelujah! A year later someone else is speaking ‘my speak;’ and endorsing the fact that Immigration Equality is no longer qualified to own immigration equality!  They have led us on a wild goose chase, all the while collecting the good will and good money of desperate bi-nationals.  G-d I hope I am proved wrong; or alternatively they had better wake up and take the fork in the road.

Tiff goes on to say “But generally, whether we go UAFA alone, or in CIR – we still have major opposition from Evangelicals and USCCB that is going unaddressed.   I think this is a huge hole in our advocacy.”

I agree but all the more reason to jump start UAFA NOW while we have the chance at shooting for the friendly numbers in Congress.  Do not tell me we have no traction!  We have not tried. For as long as we have sailed the river of CIR- we have allowed UAFA to submerge.  No matter what anyone tells you, advocating for UAFA as a stand alone is vastly different from what Immigration Equality has poured its resources into.

Maybe if the Dream Act, Ag and UAFA – were put into an omnibus – and not set up with the ’12 million biometric pay fines amnesty and fix the border controversy,’ we would get Congress to open their hearts!

Quite frankly when it come to equality related Immigration Bills, the evangelicals are welcome to risk putting their Church communities on the line in a climate that favors equity for gays and lesbians and those who abhor what the Dream Act will remedy, will eventually fall to conscience or take their front row seats in their self preserved Hell.

Recently Tiff put out a letter addressed to the USCCB telling them to STOP their advocacy against our community.   ” Some feel,”  says Tiff,  “that we should be quiet and not rock the boat since we have made gains in terms of being included in various frameworks (which is a great gain, but far from a win.)”

I wonder if he is referring to Immigration Equality here? I chose not to ask.

This articles shows that this struggle is FAR from over, and that the Evangelicals and others will regroup and come back.  http://www.congress.org/news/2010/05/26/rift_grows_between_immigration_allies

The hole that Tiff speaks of is  our failure as a movement to directly engage the opposition.   Most of the work on the religious front is focused on developing support among the more welcoming faiths.

It is here that I must add my agreement by way of example.  I would submit to Tiff that it is more than not engaging our opposition, it is a flagrant refusal to engage our opposition when we have the opportunity.  Example in point – After Shirley Tan gave testimony at the June 2009 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for UAFA, I left the hearing Room together with Shirl, Jay and then 12 year old twins; we were excited to go door to door in the Dirksen Building to Advocate for UAFA.   (The IE switch to CIR advocacy was to start the very next day, when HONDA introduced related legislation.)

We asked the staff (no names mentioned,) from Immigration Equality, for a list of representatives and senators we should go and visit to introduce Shirl, the family and to tell the story.  The momentum was significant.  We had all afternoon and would have seen anyone.

However we were explicitly told by the IE staffer NOT to waste our time going to visit with Republicans.  Naive at the time, I was surprised, because I always believe that even if a person overtly opposes my viewpoint, I have a duty to provide the education in the hope that it could nestle somewhere in the opposition’s subconscious, waiting for that rainy day of reckoning.

Tiff goes on to say, yesterday “that as with any campaign, if we ignore the opposition, they are left unfettered to do their undermining.  I really recommend that we concentrate more effort on opposing the USCCB and Evangelicals for UAFA and for our broader movement.  I think it’s silly to think that if we are quiet – they will let this happen.”

Yes, I agree TIFF is correct.  However we would need to be looking at UAFA as a stand alone and/or include he Dream Act. That would be the best way. To marry the two.

We could move quickly from framework to BILL, and call it Remedial or Equality Immigration Reform – and amnesty and Biometrics and Borders could fall into CIR as a separate piece of legislation; the division is an excellent plan, because the Equality Immigration reform is in essence remedying an inequity to basic existing rights-  to existing policy and law.

Whereas Biometrics and Amnesty entertains the conference  of a new privilege to undocumented immigrants. The reason to keep border security with this second Bill – would be to encourage Republican votes and same would remain a response to Arizona’s encroachment on Federal law.

Please keep your eyes open for a follow up Article on how we can engage our opposition and how we should push for UAFA as a stand alone, with the possibility of Including DREAM ACT.

By Melanie Nathan
Nathan@privatecourts.com
@oblogdeeoblogda

Related articles by Zemanta

• White House Calls for Immigration Reform Dsicussion with Senators Schumer & Graham (lezgetreal.com)
• Congressman Nadler talks UAFA Strategy with Bi-National Activists seeking Immigration Equality (lezgetreal.com)
• Immigration Reform Framework -Inclusion of Permanent Partners Angers Hispanic Groups (lezgetreal.com)
• Understanding the Flip Flop – Congressman Gutierrez and UAFA in Immigration Reform (lezgetreal.com)
• Out4Immigration Relentless in Pursuit of UAFA – Updates (lezgetreal.com)
• Immigration Reform Framework -Inclusion of Permanent Partners Angers Hispanic Groups (pinkbananaworld.com)
• Immigration Reform Proposal – Mentions Intent to Include Permanant Partners (lezgetreal.com)