In an interview with DC Agenda (formerly the Washington Blade), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) did not expect to take up his  “Respect for Marriage Act” until 2011, after other LGBT-focused legislation had been voted on, including the ENDA, DADT and UAFA.

“The Respect for Marriage Act comes up after that, maybe at the end of the next Congress, maybe afterward,” he [Nadler] said.

Nadler’s legislation would overturn DOMA, allowing the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages. It also has a “certainty provision” that would allow same-sex couples to marry in one state and still receive federal benefits even if they move to another state where gay nuptials aren’t recognized.

In lieu of passage in this Congress, Nadler said the task for supporters is to find more co-sponsors for the bill. As of Tuesday, the bill had 105 co-sponsors. Nadler predicted support would grow.

“And I think if some of these other bills pass, it’ll become more — the idea becomes less avant garde,” he said.

Nadler also introduced the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) earlier this year, which would allow gays and lesbians to sponsor their foreign-born partners for citizenship, and is pushing for that legislation to be a part of larger immigration reform in 2010.

“I don’t know what the final comprehensive immigration reform will look like, but I remain optimistic that it will include lesbian and gay families,” he said.

In the event that comprehensive immigration reform legislation doesn’t include UAFA when it debuts, Nadler said he’s working on making sure there are votes in the House Judiciary Committee to amend the bill to include such a provision.

Nadler said he’s “hopeful” there will be enough votes for an amendment, but added “that’ll be a big fight, if necessary.”

“I haven’t taken any votes or whip counts or done any kind of that work, but certainly it will be something that we’ll have to work at and the gay community and everybody will have to be pressuring the individual members of the committee,” Nadler said. “A lot of the members of the committee, the Democratic members especially, say they’re very great friends with the gay community … and this’ll be an opportunity to show that they are, bar none.”

When asked if he would support immigration reform without a UAFA or similar provision, Nadler reponded “I hope it doesn’t come to that.”

So do we.

The California Assembly held a hearing today on resolution ARJ 15 which urges Congress and the President to pass the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), which would allow gays and lesbians to sponsor their foreign-born partners, providing a legal path to citizenship. The bill, authored Assembly Member Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), in part says:

This resolution urges Congress to support the removal of legal barriers to immigration that affect permanent same-sex partners in binational relationships. Specifically, the resolution calls on Congress either to include the Reuniting Families Act, which incorporates the Uniting American Families Act, in comprehensive immigration reform, or to pass the Uniting American Families Act on its own as stand-alone legislation. In support of the measure, 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 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.

ARJ 15 is co-sponsored by Equality California (EQCA) and Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality (AACRE). Melanie Nathan, human rights attorney, Amos Lim, co-founder of Out4Immigration, Gina Caprio who is unable to sponsor her British partner, and representatives from EQCA and AACRE will be providing testimony.

The bill is opposed by Capital Resource Family Impact, which believes UAFA undermines the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Important Note: If you are visiting from www.usimmigrationwoes.com, they are mistaken. This is not a religious blog, and we are in full support of UAFA. Click on the UAFA link at the top of the page and will find numerous posts supportive of UAFA.

The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), which provides a path to citizenship for same-sex couples where one of the partners is not a legal resident, is coming under fire from religious groups saying the act threatens overall immigration reform and undermines traditional marriage

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council is urging constituents to call their senators and vote against the bill:

Yesterday, while I was on the Hill meeting with a handful of senators, I learned that FRC’s noise on the immigration bill, S. 424 [UAFA], is having a considerable impact. After your calls and emails started pouring in, one leader told me the legislation, which would give a special resident status to same-sex partners, had become an embarrassing “spectacle.” Although the bill is still active, finding support for it will be even tougher now that FRC has shined the light on its real objective: undermining marriage. If you haven’t contacted your senators, please chime in this week and urge them to vote “no” on the “Uniting American Families Act.”

Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, head of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference is also opposed to the measure. From Politco.com:

..he [Rev. Rodriguez] called the efforts to slip gay rights into the immigration debate a “slap in the face to those of us who have fought for years for immigration reform.”

Rodriguez, who has worked with evangelical churches to build support for a broader immigration bill that would expand visa laws, said that if the same-sex language stays in, it will “divide the very broad and strong coalition that we have built on behalf of comprehensive immigration reform.”

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has also indicated they will not support immigration reform if it contains language granting rights to same-sex couples, saying it “would erode the institution of marriage and family… a position that  is contrary to the very nature of marriage which pre-dates the church and the state.”

As noted by Senator Jeff Sessions during the UAFA hearings earlier this week, Focus on the Family, the Eagle Forum and Concerned Women for America are also opposed to the legislation. Well post their official statements as they become available.

Lou Dobbs on CNN report on those opposed to UAFA last week. Watch:

Currently the House version of UAFA has 105 co-sponsors, while the Senate version of the bill only has 19 co-sponsors.

Please contact your local Represenative and have them co-sponsor UAFA.

Important Note: If you are visiting from www.usimmigrationwoes.com, they are mistaken. This is not a religious blog, and we are in full support of UAFA. Click on the UAFA link at the top of the page and will find numerous posts supportive of UAFA.

Roy Beck seems to thinks so, Executive Director of NumbersUSA, who made the argument during the UAFA hearings yesterday. I’m all for reducing our carbon footprint as a part of multifaceted approach to reduce global warming, but I’ve never heard anything so entirely ridiculous. From the NumbersUSA website:

But nearly every new adult permanently added to the U.S. population through immigration legislation would be a potential competitor to unemployed and underemployed American workers. And every new immigrant increases the total U.S. carbon footprint and ecological footprint (and, because of increased consumption once they arrive here, increases the global footprints, as well).

Given the larger context of current immigration levels, passing S. 424 would be irresponsible to the environment, to future generations and to the most economically vulnerable members of our national community.

Don’t individuals seeking U.S. citizenship contribute to our “global” carbon footprint whether they are in our country or not? I wonder if Beck also favors abortion as a method of reducing our carbon footprint? Someone needs to ask.

Beck also has ties John Tanton, the “racist founder of many of the nation’s key nativist groups”, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). In the video below the SPLC explores America’s anti-immigration network, with Roy Beck making an appearance around the 5:30 mark. The whole video is definitely worth a watch.

Somehow this feels like some poorly conceived attempt to appeal to the left-leaning, green conscious among us, making his anti-immigration rhetoric more palatable. Sure we can reduce global warming by simply allowing fewer immigrants to enter the country. It smacks discrimination. And now he’s directing it at gay people. Sure. Let’s spread the hate.

You can watch his testimony at the UAFA hearings here.