Perhaps I misread. I interpreted your remarks to mean that if we accepted their homosexual marriage law, they should somehow be bound to accept our gun laws, because if you accept one, you ought to accept them all. Was I mistaken?
Cross-posted from Pit thread, although edited, because there have been developments (such as someone actually digging up a cite):
Polygamy is not recognized by U.S. immigration law. In fact, it’s grounds for denial of a visa. Also, to gain any immigration benefit through marriage, if you’ve been married before, you have to show documentary proof that the previous marriage was terminated (either by divorce or death of former spouse). I can dig up cites next week when I’m back at work if you’re interested.
One of the wackier cases I ever observed in my immigration court days actually hinged on this issue. Nigerian guy overstays tourist visa, marries US citizen. Now INS was usually not so sharp at picking up on fraudulent marriages, so most of the cases we saw in court were pretty egregious, but this one looked reasonable on the surface: same age, language in common, looked like they’d at least met each other before, etc.
But some sharp-eyed INS examiner looked at his original visitor visa application, where he listed a wife and six kids in Nigeria. So what happened to them, since if he was alreayd married his U.S. marriage wouldn’t have been valid to begin with?
His answer: “Ummmm, Nigerian tribal divorce. Yeah, that’s it.” There was a continuance, and the guy actually produced sworn affidavits from some Nigerian tribal chieftain that XYZ was accepted proxy divorce procedure among his tribe. The judge didn’t believe a word of it and tried to get the consulate to do an investigation, but they didn’t have the resources. I don’t know what happened in the end, but I seem to remember something about the dates on the affidavits not matching up with the rest of the case history. Anyway, bigamy is not legal in the U.S., and the immigration laws reflect that.
Does that mean the sheikh can’t bring all his wives over to take up the Plaza Hotel? I don’t know for sure, but I’d bet only one of them is declared as a wife on the visitor visa application, and the rest are just “traveling companions.” It wouldn’t be at all shocking to know that in some situations, there is willful ignorance on this issue. Although a former co-worker who used to run the International Students office at a local university swore they had a profesor who used to rotate wives: one semester, one of them would be in the U.S. with him, and then he’d swap her for the other one over semester breaks. It could work; he did have two marriage certificates, after all. But he wasn’t from a Mulsim country; some of the marriage certificates I’ve seen from Muslim countries list which number wife the bride is. (Although that’s not even as wacky as one Iranian marriage certificate I saw; apparently Iran, wives fall into one of three categories: virgin, divorced, or widow.)
Anyway, carry on…but here’s another analogy. Why is this different than, say, France refusing to allow extradition of someone who is facing the death penalty in the U.S., because France doesn’t allow the death penalty?
That’s what I said in reference to Dogface’s post. That’s what I got out of his comments. Do I agree with it? Not really. But there is something to what he said that bears thinking about. And that is:
If people absolutely insist that we must conform with some of their laws, as matt seems to want, then why can’t we insist that they comply with some of ours, as a matter of national policy? If we have to recognize same-sex marriage, then why can’t we compel them to accept our concealed carry laws, for instance?
Apples and oranges, I know, but it’s still an interesting question.
Are you asking why it is not “fair,” as it were, that we cannot compel them to accept our gun laws? Or are you asking for a more pragmatic analysis as to why this won’t happen even in a month of Sundays?
No. I don’t care, I’m just asking the question.
I’ve never even been to Canada. It makes no difference to me.
I’m not exactly sure what the debate is here, but it seems to me that this is just another example of another person/people having to play games at the border. I’ve had friends denied and detained for all sorts of reasons, some legitimate, and some not, but the #1 rule for crossing the border is to do what they ask if you really care about getting across.
We’ve got a border patrol that can be as arbitrary as it likes, and so if they ask me to do something I do it, because I know I can be turned around for any reason whatsoever.
I will agree with you matt, that something should be done about this pronto, but I don’t really understand what is ‘beginning’ as stated in the OP.
I’m half-tempted to ask Airman how he’d feel if it were he and MsRobyn being asked to apply for entry as single people.
I’ll answer jayjay’s question.
If there was a country that didn’t recognize American marraiges and wanted the wife and me to fill out separate forms, we’d fill out different forms if we wanted to go there bad enough. I know that I’m married and could give a crap what some official government policy was. If a policy existed that I found distateful enough, I’d boycott the place. What’s so damn hard about that?
For the record, I consider those guys married too. If they were in my home, I would treat them like any other married couple. They still need to follow our laws when they are here though.
Haj
(A small quibble, before anyone else raises it - Kevin and Joe were not “in your country;” they were in Toronto Pearson International Airport.
Of course, they were going through American customs at the time.
However, in the Globe and Mail article someone does take note of the fact that they were in Canada, though whether for symbolic reasons or owing to some possibility of legal impact I am not sure.)
To answer Eonwe: I meant that it begins in the sense that this is the first affrontment I’m aware of between a legally married gay Canadian couple and the non-gay-marriage-recognizing laws of the US.
Doesn’t the NAFTA treaty require that the US and Canada recognise each other’s marriages?
I think you may be confusing “recognizing each others laws” with “having the same laws for their citizens when they are here.”
Since we generally recognize Canadian laws, I don’t know why this situation should be any different. Canada has a law against hand guns. We are obliged to honor that law when we cross the border. The United States does not have laws against single people, married people or homosexuals. There is no reason that these two people should not have been allowed to enter. They should have been provided with an appropriate form (gender non-specific).
Notice that they would have been allowed to enter before their marriage became legal!
Also, notice that this couple is not immigrating to the United States; immigration standards do not apply. If they did immigrate to the U.S., they could not expect to have their marriage recognized at this time.
I suspect that a new form will be in the works shortly and that Canadian citizens will no longer be put in the position of lying about their marital status.
BTW, I am licensed to teach only in the State of Tennessee. If I go to Kentucky and someone asks if I am a teacher, I am not lying when I answer in the affirmative.
matt, I found your pun rather provincial.
OK, whatever.
When they are in my country or are trying to enter it, they have to follow the applicable rules or face the consequences.
Haj
Yep. They can say they are married and they would not be barred from entering. You couldn’t apply for a teaching job in Kentucky though.
In any event, US law does not at the moment descriminate against people of a certain profession entering the country. It does descriminate against gay versus straight marriage. An unfair law, in my opinion, but one that must be followed if you want to enter here. American gay partners can’t only fill out one customs declaration form when they come back from vacation either.
Haj
Hi. This topic is being pitted.
Well… no they couldn’t say they were married. That’s kind of the point. They were not allowed to use the form for married people. They had to choose between making a false statement on an official document and not being allowed to enter the country at all.
They are not married by US law. Neither is the shiek’s second wife. It is not a false statement at all.
They can tell people they are married, even the immegration official and they wouldn’t be prevented from entering.
Haj
But they were in Canada when they were asked the question.
Just because we don’t allow gay marriages in the U.S. that doesn’t mean that we don’t recognize these Canadian marriages as legal. I honestly don’t know.
Anyway, I’m not asking to teach in Kentucky. I’m just on a hypothetical trip. And this couple is not asking to settle in the U.S. Then are here just for a convention on human rights. Don’t you love the irony?
Oh please. They were filling out a form for the US Government. The form must be filled out according to US law. It doesn’t matter where they were when the form was filled out.
Haj