Trump bans gay Visa's

Reply
#2
"According to the United Nations memo, which was dated Sept. 13, the State Department has not issued G-4 family visas to heterosexual domestic partners since 2009."
- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/po...omats.html

This is just removing the Clinton carve out, i.e. special treatment.
Reply
#3
Red-neck rousing propoganda publicity stunt ?

a marriage is old french term for(together) which is assumed by countrys to mean
non bindingly accepted nationalised licensed personal relationship between 2 or more people ...

in some countrys a 40 year old man can be legally married to a 10 year old girl.
it would be interesting to see if the USA bloodymindedly held to its projection of implied morality in terms by acceptance of nationalised license.

do they make a point about that ? not if it challenges their religous conservative discrimination against same sex couples i should imagine.

it is just another example of attempting to excite the radical extremist part of society.
Reply
#4
Who said all foreign legal marriages are respected by the US? Can you cite a source on that? O_o
Yes, we have laws that protect minors. Is that a bad thing? O_o
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution guarantee equal protection under the law...meaning that special exemptions based on things like orientation are illegal.
So they cannot legally grant visas to homosexual domestic partners without also granting them to heterosexual domestic partners. And granting visas to individuals unrelated to diplomats can be a security concern.

Get your head out of your ass.
Reply
#5
(Oct 3, 2018 06:20 AM)Syne Wrote: Who said all foreign legal marriages are respected by the US? Can you cite a source on that? O_o
Yes, we have laws that protect minors. Is that a bad thing? O_o
Where is any indiscriminate "implied morality" of foreign countries? O_o
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution guarantee equal protection under the law...meaning that special exemptions based on things like orientation are illegal.
So they cannot legally grant visas to homosexual domestic partners without also granting them to heterosexual domestic partners. And granting visas to individuals unrelated to diplomats can be a security concern.

Get your head out of your ass.

Quote:The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution guarantee equal protection under the law...meaning that special exemptions based on things like orientation are illegal.

and gender ?

Quote:Get your head out of your ass.

you have to try and lower the tone to some type of feral paranoid reality dont you.
soo locked up in your hate and violence you have to instal fear and paranoia in others around you to make yourself feel normalised.

thanks for reminding me why i stopped interacting with you.
Reply
#6
(Oct 3, 2018 10:07 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote:
(Oct 3, 2018 06:20 AM)Syne Wrote: The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution guarantee equal protection under the law...meaning that special exemptions based on things like orientation are illegal.

and gender ?
And? Where's a special exemption for gender? O_o
Quote:
Quote:Get your head out of your ass.

you have to try and lower the tone to some type of feral paranoid reality dont you.
This is the only "feral paranoid reality" here:
(Oct 3, 2018 05:47 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: Red-neck rousing propoganda publicity stunt ?
...
it is just another example of attempting to excite the radical extremist part of society.
So quit projecting. Rolleyes
Quote:soo locked up in your hate and violence you have to instal fear and paranoia in others around you to make yourself feel normalised.

thanks for reminding me why i stopped interacting with you.
Really? Imploring you to look beyond your obviously myopic biases makes you feel "fear and paranoia"? O_o
Wait, of course it would, because your view of reality is a delicate little self-deception always on the verge of collapse when faced with facts.
Or do you just not realize what "instill" ("instal" [sic]) means, and the admission it implies? Rolleyes

Oh, I've had you on ignore for several years, buddy. You're more than welcome to return the favor. Might help insulate your little bubble.
Reply
#7
(Oct 3, 2018 05:47 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: Trump bans gay Visa's

That's just false.

The United States recognizes foreign same-sex marriages as equivalent to heterosexual marriages for purposes of granting K-3 spousal non-resident visas for regular people and G-4 spousal visas for diplomats.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/...-nato.html

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/...e-k-3.html

The BBC even acknowledges that diplomats' G-4 visa provisions contain an added bonus provision: "The only exception, however, would be same-sex partners of officials coming from countries that do not recognise same-sex marriage. They will be granted a diplomatic visa if the government which sends them to work in their embassies in the US grants the same privileges to same-sex partners of US officials sent to that oountry."

So... the issue here is whether the US should recognize foreign diplomats' unmarried sex-partners from countries that refuse to recognize American diplomats' unmarried sex-partners.

Some gay-activist group at the UN shrieks: ""Couples already inside of the United States could go to city hall and get married. But they could potentially be exposed to prosecution if they return to a country that criminalises homosexuality or same-sex marriages."

But... wouldn't a foreign diplomat's unmarried same-sex partner receiving a G-4 spousal visa in the US 'out' both of them as homosexual and expose them to prosecution in their home country if homosexuality is illegal there?

Quote:Red-neck rousing propoganda publicity stunt ?

More of a SJW - rousing publicity stunt on the part of the BBC (or whoever originally spun this into a "news" item).

Quote:it is just another example of attempting to excite the radical extremist part of society.

I agree with that, but not in the way originally intended. It looks like another example of "fake news".
Reply
#8
(Oct 3, 2018 05:16 PM)Yazata Wrote:
(Oct 3, 2018 05:47 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: Trump bans gay Visa's

That's just false.

The United States recognizes foreign same-sex marriages as equivalent to heterosexual marriages for purposes of granting K-3 spousal non-resident visas for regular people and G-4 spousal visas for diplomats.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/...-nato.html

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/...e-k-3.html

The BBC even acknowledges that diplomats' G-4 visa provisions contain an added bonus provision: "The only exception, however, would be same-sex partners of officials coming from countries that do not recognise same-sex marriage. They will be granted a diplomatic visa if the government which sends them to work in their embassies in the US grants the same privileges to same-sex partners of US officials sent to that country."

So... the issue here is whether the US should recognize foreign diplomats' unmarried sex-partners from countries that refuse to recognize American diplomats' unmarried sex-partners.

Some gay-activist group at the UN shrieks: ""Couples already inside of the United States could go to city hall and get married. But they could potentially be exposed to prosecution if they return to a country that criminalises homosexuality or same-sex marriages."

But... wouldn't a foreign diplomat's unmarried same-sex partner receiving a G-4 spousal visa in the US 'out' both of them as homosexual and expose them to prosecution in their home country if homosexuality is illegal there?  

Quote:Red-neck rousing propoganda publicity stunt ?

More of a SJW - rousing publicity stunt on the part of the BBC (or whoever originally spun this into a "news" item).

Quote:it is just another example of attempting to excite the radical extremist part of society.

I agree with that, but not in the way originally intended. It looks like another example of "fake news".

How is it "fake news"? I don't get it.

Quote:If you are a staff member on a G-4 visa in the United States and in a domestic partnership, and your partner is on a derivative G-4 visa, please know that the State Department is now requiring that you be legally married in order to continue to be able to secure a derivative G-4 visa for your partner.

With this change, the State Department is enforcing parity in the way they recognize opposite-sex partnerships and same-sex partnerships.

Since 2009, if you were in an opposite-sex partnership, the State Department required that you be legally married in order to obtain a derivative G-4 visa for your partner.

This was not the case for same-sex partnerships. Same-sex partners in a domestic partnership were still able to secure a derivative G-4 visa for the same-sex partner. This will NO LONGER be the case.

And it is an unfortunate change in rules, since same-sex couples, unlike opposite-sex couples, have limited choices when it comes to marriage.

Therefore, if you are a in a domestic partnership with a same-sex partner, and this same-sex partner is on a derivative G-4 visa, please consider getting married in order for your partner to be able to continue getting a derivative G-4 visa.

http://www.unglobe.org/advocacy-notes/20...ted-states

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/...pdf#page=1
Reply
#9
(Oct 4, 2018 01:50 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Oct 3, 2018 05:16 PM)Yazata Wrote:
(Oct 3, 2018 05:47 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: Trump bans gay Visa's

That's just false.

The United States recognizes foreign same-sex marriages as equivalent to heterosexual marriages for purposes of granting K-3 spousal non-resident visas for regular people and G-4 spousal visas for diplomats.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/...-nato.html

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/...e-k-3.html

The BBC even acknowledges that diplomats' G-4 visa provisions contain an added bonus provision: "The only exception, however, would be same-sex partners of officials coming from countries that do not recognise same-sex marriage. They will be granted a diplomatic visa if the government which sends them to work in their embassies in the US grants the same privileges to same-sex partners of US officials sent to that country."

So... the issue here is whether the US should recognize foreign diplomats' unmarried sex-partners from countries that refuse to recognize American diplomats' unmarried sex-partners.

Some gay-activist group at the UN shrieks: ""Couples already inside of the United States could go to city hall and get married. But they could potentially be exposed to prosecution if they return to a country that criminalises homosexuality or same-sex marriages."

But... wouldn't a foreign diplomat's unmarried same-sex partner receiving a G-4 spousal visa in the US 'out' both of them as homosexual and expose them to prosecution in their home country if homosexuality is illegal there?  

Quote:Red-neck rousing propoganda publicity stunt ?

More of a SJW - rousing publicity stunt on the part of the BBC (or whoever originally spun this into a "news" item).

Quote:it is just another example of attempting to excite the radical extremist part of society.

I agree with that, but not in the way originally intended. It looks like another example of "fake news".

How is it "fake news"? I don't get it.

Quote:If you are a staff member on a G-4 visa in the United States and in a domestic partnership, and your partner is on a derivative G-4 visa, please know that the State Department is now requiring that you be legally married in order to continue to be able to secure a derivative G-4 visa for your partner.

With this change, the State Department is enforcing parity in the way they recognize opposite-sex partnerships and same-sex partnerships.

Since 2009, if you were in an opposite-sex partnership, the State Department required that you be legally married in order to obtain a derivative G-4 visa for your partner.

This was not the case for same-sex partnerships. Same-sex partners in a domestic partnership were still able to secure a derivative G-4 visa for the same-sex partner. This will NO LONGER be the case.

And it is an unfortunate change in rules, since same-sex couples, unlike opposite-sex couples, have limited choices when it comes to marriage.

Therefore, if you are a in a domestic partnership with a same-sex partner, and this same-sex partner is on a derivative G-4 visa, please consider getting married in order for your partner to be able to continue getting a derivative G-4 visa.

http://www.unglobe.org/advocacy-notes/20...ted-states

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/...pdf#page=1

Quote:that do not recognise same-sex marriage.

no marriage license no partner status ...
if someone is living with someone as a life partner why would there need to be a discrimination between having a marriage license which is governed internatioanly as a norm as being a gender discrimination ?


its popcorn media for right wing conservative radicals

all Visas are discretionary so there is no way to force a court to hand out a visa when the licesed government body denys it.
the ability to "reject" a law change to visa elidgability in the USA muslim ban is a cow @ a dog show for publicity.(media popcorn for right wing radicals)
Reply
#10
It's fake news that Trump has banned gay visas.
Your quote even says that it just removes the special treatment for same-sex domestic partners (not married), e.g. "the State Department is enforcing parity in the way they recognize opposite-sex partnerships and same-sex partnerships".

"Parity" is equal treatment, not a ban on gay visas.

(Oct 4, 2018 01:56 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: no marriage license no partner status ...
if someone is living with someone as a life partner why would there need to be a discrimination between having a marriage license which is governed internatioanly as a norm as being a gender discrimination ?

What gender discrimination? It's not the responsibility of the US to make up for the laws of foreign countries. It is the responsibility of the US to apply its own laws equally.
Quote:its popcorn media for right wing conservative radicals
Nope, just more of your "feral paranoid reality".
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)