I don’t know. Of interest, though, is this definition from Ontario’s Family Law Act, s. 1(2): “In the definition of “spouse”, a reference to marriage includes a marriage that is actually or potentially polygamous, if it was celebrated in a jurisdiction whose system of law recognizes it as valid.”
I just hope this doesn’t backfire.
It’s a really sucky thing, but it’s not that they were denied entrance, it’s that they wouldn’t fill out the forms right.
Which, I agree, sucks.
Frankly, I have a very hard time getting worked up over this for the simple reason that there are thousands and thousands of people who have been denied entry or deported or even jailed when they were willing to jump through any and all hoops, just because the INS is manifestly incompetent when not corrupt and because of the policies of the US government. Thousands of students and other aliens are in legal limbo fearing deportation and many other people are denied visas no matter how hard they try. The whole thing is fucked up beyond belief. Families are separated, people lose their livelihoods and nobody seems to care much.
The people in the OP could have just filled the form and sailed past immigration. In the grand scheme of things it is not something I am about to get worked up about. Now, the students who have been jailed and/or deported because of INS screwups, the families which have been separated, etc. . . that’s something I could get worked up about.
The INS (or whatever they call it these days) is screwed up beyond belief. The paperwork and requirements people have to go trhough to apply for visas are a nightmare and the delays are many months or even years. I read an article that Fiancee visas in Asian countries and Russia were taking almost two years which is just ridiculous. Are these women who are planning on marrying Americans such a risk? The red tape and delays are inexcusable so forgive me if I do not get all worked up about the OP. I would be much more ready to get worked up about other people who are willing to do anything and still cannot get a visa.
The questioning goes beyond being ridiculous:
QUESTION LEAST LIKELY TO BE ANSWERED TRUTHFULLY:
From the Supplemental Nonimmigrant Visa Application, Form DS-157, question #14 reads:
Are they expecting to catch some Iraqis from the WMD program or what? It wouldn’t matter what you answer because due to lack of manpower the application is going to sit in a pile for months and then it will be lost and you will have to start over again.
Can anyone provide a cite to a particular law by which hetrosexual Canadian marriages are recognized in the USA?
You betcha.
“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘‘spouse’’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”
1 U.S.C. sec. 7. [Section 7 of Volume 1 of the United States Code]
I’m not sure that there’s a statute, but I did research it, and that’s the law. (I was married in Europe.) There are exceptions for marriages that are offensive to the public policy of the recognizing state, such as a marriage between siblings.
Thanks, Jodi!
For you, MUFFIN, anything. 
I’d suspect that international recognition of a marriage celebrated in another country, so far as either Canada or US is concerned, would have its roots in A-S common law and the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman (the wording of which I would expect would change over time and in different places). I’m no lawyer, so I can’t say much beyond that on that topic.
Canada is one of only three countries which ARE SAID TO recognize same-sex marriage and, in fact, that recognition has not been passed by Parliament. The courts of three provinces have said that THE EXISTING LAW contravenes our constitution. Canada has declined to oppose these rulings in the Supreme Court, and has instead drafted a new law recognizing same-sex unions as marriages, rather than supposedly equivalent form of civil union. They have referred this draft to the Supreme Court for an opinion on whether it is constitutional. No decision is expected til the spring.
In the meantime, we will have a change of government, with a new PM and a largely different cabinet. The prospective PM has just stated that there will be a full parliamentary debate on the draft law, and that changes can be expected. This could mean something along the lines of a differentiation between church-sanctioned marriages and state-sanctioned civil unions. We just don’t know yet.
Just to say where I’m coming from, I support same-sex marriages, and don’t even see why there is a controversy about this. But… if Canada can’t even decide whether the marriages that have taken place are legitimate, and could in future change the legal status of these marriages, then why would anyone expect a different country to overhaul its administrative procedures on the flip of a dime?
Good post, Not In Anger, thanks for articulating that so well.
Agreed on all points.
It’s ludicrous that it’s taking so long for something so commonsensical to be accepted by law, but there it is.
Accepting the form as signed would amount to an acknowlegement of the marriage. May not seem like a big deal, but if it’s okay on an entrance application, it’s okay on an income-tax return, isn’t it? That it should be okay on both is quite beside the point.
It’s also natural and right that people should scream bloody blue murder about it until the situation changes.
Very well put, Not In Anger.
It bites arse, but it’s the law. We’ll lobby to get it changed, but meanwhile get a comfortable chair, it’ll take a while. Meanwhile, by all means protest. (Though a lawsuit would be mostly symbolic. A Canadian court cannot order the US Government to change its laws; at most they would move the point-of-turnaround from the departure lounge at Toronto to the arrivals desk at Atlanta)
Thanks to Jodi for the cite. And may I mention, that the principle of “full faith and credit” is only constitutionally binding internally among the states and territories. AFAIK, in the case of polygamous foreigners, upon each visa you may identify one and only one as “spouse” for its duration.
And may I, in defense of Doors’s example, say that to many Americans that’s just the easiest-at-hand example of something that is seen as close to a birthright in the USA but seen as something undesirable in many other Western nations. Meant to convey legal, NOT moral, equivalency.
I actually checked the “Yes” box on that when I prepared the DS-157 for my fiancee visa. :eek: Then they didn’t want the form anyway… Seriously, any immigrant with army training is likely to be trained in firearms, explosives and (defending against) NBC weapons. And as my military record was in the paperwork, it would’ve looked funny…
Nah, the howlers are those along the lines of “Are you planning to overthrow the Government Yes/No ?”
Seriously: If the US is going to enter the 20th century and accept gay marriage, that is a decision for Congress to make. Not some random BCIS (former INS) agent who’s going to get his nuts in a vice if he doesn’t go by the book.
Incidentally, this is a really poor battle to pick. The BCIS as an agency is not known to wield its powers in a particularly fair and even-handed way. In other words, if an immigration agent looks at you and say “You are now a frog!”, the correct reply is to quack loudly and convincingly in order to get the friggin’ stamp, then make faces as you leave his desk.
Frogs quack now?
Whoa.
A question on the table in the GD thread is what does the INS do when a sheik shows up with multiple wives. Does he just register with one as a wife and the others register as single? Or is there some other way? We’d certainly appreciate having our ignorance eradicated on this subject if you’ve got the time (hope you feel better, BTW).
Yes, if immigration asks them to, and if they want to get into the country unhassled, and if they are smart.
You’re probably right. The algorithm probably says “Ask if it’s a frog?” No (any unanimal-sounding-noise), refer to Supervisor; Yes (any animal sound, including croaks, quacks, moos, barks, etc.) that should be treated as proper respect. Proceed to “racial profile” algorithm.
You forgot the subset on what to do if the quack fails to echo.
Hey, with the flu I got nothin’ but time. What I don’t have is the first idea of the answer to this question, so I’ll have to take a pass on attempting to answer it. Sorry.
A question.
If I marry a guy in Toronto, and then move to Des Moines and marry a woman without having divorced my husband, does the U.S. consider that bigamy?
No, because in the eyes of the U.S. you were never married in the first place. Canada might consider it bigamy, but the U.S. would not.