SF Couple Needs to Keep Fighting - Please!

S.F. gay married couple loses immigration battle

I'm reading between the lines (I'm an immigration attorney in private practice here in the United States) and my belief is that the couple had an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative and a I-485 Application for Adjustment of Status to Lawful Permanent Residency (green card application), possibly filed with it, denied on the grounds of the definition of marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which is the agency that runs the Citizenship and Immigration Service, which decides these types of marriage-based petitions. They have some options, which I sincerely hope they take, including but not limited to:

1. Allowing the alien spouse to be put into removal proceedings so that the Department of Justice (DOJ), which runs Immigration Court, will have to either enforce DOMA or not via the Immigration Judge's decision, which can then be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (also part of DOJ), and on to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as necessary.

   The letter that Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, sent to the Speaker of the House of Representatives earlier this year saying that the Department of Justice would no longer argue in favor of DOMA in jurisdictions where the legal standard of review is "heightened scrutiny" only comes into play, for sure, in my opinion, when the matter gets before a Circuit Court of Appeals (one that's applying that legal standard). However, since the DOJ is the agency in charge of running the Immigration Court, I'm very VERY curious to see what the A.G. thinks the ImmCourt's responsibilities are in terms of an Immigration Judge applying DOMA. If the head of the agency says the law is insupportable, how can an adjudicator under the agency (Immigration Judge) enforce it?

2. Request Deferred Enforced Departure, which is a status granted by the DHS-Citizenship and Immigration Service, to aliens where the DHS says it has a low "priority" on removing the person from the country. In such cases, they may be allowed to obtain a work permit based on that status.
3. I forget if you can appeal a denial of an I-130 directly, but obviously, if that's on the table, do that until you get out of the agency and before a federal court.

If I were in California, I'd be hunting this couple down to volunteer my services pro bono - I hope they have an attorney, because immigration petitions or court rarely goes well without one. It's that sticky.

Critique of G+ Names Policy

I've reviewed the recent G+ answers on names setting out the current name policy at G+ (aka plus.google.com) and have some notes for the team. Be advised that I'm a software engineer turned lawyer and part-time professor of legal research and writing. Which means, doing this amused me *immensely*. It may or may not amuse you. Regardless, this is a serious critique of the way the policy is written.

Nutshell Critique: Your rules, as stated, do not successfully implement your policy.

More Detailed Breakdown:

This is the policy that the rules, enumerated further below, will attempt to implement:

"Google+ makes connecting with people on the web more like connecting with people in the real world. Because of this, it’s important to use your common name so that the people you want to connect with can find you. Your common name is the name your friends, family or co-workers usually call you."

(Emphasis added). Now, the rules that attempt to implement this policy are:

a. Use your full first and last name in a single language.
b. Put nicknames or pseudonyms in the Other Names field.
c. Avoid unusual characters in your name.
d. Your profile and name must represent one individual.
e. Don't use the name of another individual.
f. Name Changes - one per 30 days

Let's review them together, shall we? Google defines a "common name" in a specific way - the name "your friends, family, or co-workers usually call you" - and wants you to use that name for a specific purpose - to make you easy to find by the people who you want to be able to find you and connect with you.

None of the rules enable implementation of this policy in any significant way, and half of them hamper it.

a. If your commonly used name is "Skud", just to pick an example not at all at random, the rule that you use a first and last name increases rather than decreases the difficulty of the people with whom you want to connect finding you, because those people will be searching for you via the name "Skud".

b. Ditto the requirement that you put nicknames or pseudonyms in your 'other names' field. If your commonly used name is a nickname or a pseudonym, then that is the name people with whom you want to connect will use to look for you. See, e.g., "Skud", or "James Tiptree, Jr." So, that should be your primary name, not your 'other' name, by definition.

c. Unusual characters: If your common name has unusual characters than that is what must be used to express it. Any other name is not your common name, and thus fails the definition given above and can't satisfy the stated policy.

d. One entity at a time. - This rule I'll address at a later time of my choosing.

e. Don't use someone else's name. This is problematic because names, however much we'd like them to be unique, aren't. There are many Johnny Smiths out there, and more than one might want to be on G+. However, the rule, as written, is not too atrocious - the goal is clear: don't impersonate someone else. Why not make that aspect more explicit, though?

(I call this the 'don't impersonate Wil Wheaton' rule. Because breaking it would make you a dick.)

f. Name changes - once every 30 days. This rule is murky at best (why 30 days and not 15, or 60?), but if you read between the lines, you can see the goal of persistent identity. Why don't you try to tease that out a little more? The problems inherent in this list come from the prior rules, that hamper rather than facilitate establishing your persistent identity through assumptions of what a 'common name' must looks like.

So, Google, your names "rules" as written do not implement your stated "policy" of making it easy for users to be found by those with whom they want to connect.

I give your draft a C-. Maybe a D+. (And that means, not even professionally competent.) Don't be too downcast, though, because I'm going to give you more time to work on it. Why don't you get it back to me in a week, and I'll give you some more critique. We can see where you stand, then.

G+ and names

I've been less visible on this subject than others, due to time constraints.

I happen to use my real name in my Google Profile, which, funnily, isn't[*]. In part, because I never planned to do anything with my Gmail account. But then I wound up using it for work, and then someone sent me a G+ invite, and I felt obligated to give it a try. So, it's mere coincidence that I actually conform (apparently) with the G+ community standards for naming, or whatever it is.

Skud has been great as the go-to person on this subject. Check out Google+ names policy, explained

The whole 'give us a government issued id with your name on it' thing from Google is quite creepy, aside from the issues of one's commonly-used names and one's i.d. not always matching and how being asked to use your 'real name' on your profile is problematic for minority communities (trans, women, etc), as so many have written so eloquently already.

They're asking you to scan a copy of your government issued i.d. and email it to them. What?

This insistence on a government issued ID that they claim will be deleted immediately causes a situation rife with the possibility of identity theft, doesn't it? I mean, come on, how many reading this work in IT, or used to? We all know how easy it is for things NOT to be deleted. Backups, rollbacks, cron jobs that don't work right, and the ever-popular "I'll get to it eventually."

I'll be on Diaspora, instead. http://joindiaspora.com

[*] Isn't my real name. Except when it is. Like, on most of my government IDs. It's just not the name on my birth certificate, which is also a government ID. Why? Because my mother remarried when we were 8 or 9. And it caused a whole big drama when I tried in my 20s to get a passport in what I *thought* was my name, but is actually an alias, let me tell you. Holy crap. So, dear Google, I've been using a pseudonym almost my entire life. Which name *should* I give you, really?

If Your Website's Full of Assholes, It's Your Fault

Morally, if not legally. This blog post by Anil Dash, http://dashes.com/anil/2011/07/if-your-websites-full-of-assholes-its-your-fault.html is so very very right.

I've been waiting all day to make a post about this, and my own experience moderating communities and I simply don't have the time. In fact, not having the time is why I closed down a mailing list I ran around about 10 years ago - the nature of the debates we intended to have, and did have, quite successfully, required close attention, and I couldn't give it with Silicon Valley sucking my life away - and handed over moderation of another list for Webgrrls-LA around the same time, and never enabled comments on this blog, either. Because I didn't have the time. Don't have the time? Well then, don't host the community. Because you do have a moral obligation to police assholes, call them on their racism, classism, sexism, or general jerkiness. We have that obligation because we're human beings and we live in the same communities, even when they're online ones.

Lawyering as an Intrinsically Self-Sacrificing and Thus 'Female' Profession

All of the really interesting stuff I have to talk about right now is Too Personal, so there. That leaves us with links, film commentary, feminist commentary, etc. So, you know, the usual.

Feminist Commentary Portion:

I was talking to someone yesterday and commented on the fact that as an attorney you're supposed to be self-sacrificing and not allow "inconveniences" to interfere with your competent, zealous representation of your client.

Well, shit, when you put it that way, doesn't that sound like the ideal of the self-sacrificing woman, who puts her career on hold, or waits to go back to school to finish college so that she can raise the kids, or basically all the mom-type behaviors - explicitly self-sacrificing behaviors - we validate as worthwhile in women?

And yet lawyering is, paradigmatically, a male profession.

Film Commentary Portion:

Watched Dr. Zhivago last weekend (Omar Sharif) and just *loved* it, especially accompanied by vodka. Interesting to watch all the Brit actors running about pretending to be Russian. After watching and getting an Amazon gift card I promptly plunked it down for a copy of Dr. Zhivago of my very own, both the book, and the DVD.

Links Portion:

No links. You should read Hullabaloo. And International Cry. And Feministing. And Tiger Beatdown. And I Blame the Patriarchy.

Sidra has spoken: obey!

"God Told Me to Run" is Not a Qualification for Elected Office

Just for the record: I do not think that "God told me to" is a great reason to run for elected office in the United States. I'm also not keen on "God mentioned it to me the other day as a possibility", or "God and I were at the same barbecue and He didn't say anything about my idea to run for office so it must be OK," or even "God never replied to my email on the subject."

Anyone who claims God is telling them to do so specific as to run for President is, IMO, lying to cover up some other reason. You know, like an extreme thirst for power. Or something like that.

OH, wait, or (but possibly in addition to an extreme thirst for power) demonstrating their total contempt for people trying to live simple, moral lives with careful thought about their actions relative to their religious beliefs, as opposed to cookie-cutter Capitalist Jesus wankery.

(I am annoyed at my country's attitudes toward religion today, as well as at many people who keep wanting to run my country on the basis of their Awesome Love of Jesus. Can you tell?)

This post brought to you by Dubya, Sarah, and Michelle, and I'm sure, so many more idiots who try to claim divine right.

What's New? I'm Mad at Google, That's What.

I have a Google+ account, but I'm going to be using my Diaspora account quite a bit more than G+, because of this problem, and this problematic treatment of perceived 'violators' by Google.

Google+ requires you to use your "real" name. Unfortunately, "real" names aren't well defined, and it's often in users' best interests to allow the use of pseudonyms and names that may not seem "real".

Accelerating Impacts from Short-Lived Climate Pollutants Threaten Human Rights

Accelerating Impacts from Short-Lived Climate Pollutants Threaten Human Rights:

Black carbon soot, ground-level (tropospheric) ozone, methane, and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are collectively known as short-lived climate pollutants. They remain in the atmosphere for days to a few decades, and are responsible for up to half of global climate change and the associated adverse impacts. They can be cut quickly using existing technologies and often using current laws and institutions. Reducing them can cut the rate of global warming in half and the rate of warming in the Arctic by two-thirds. The Arctic is currently warming at twice the rate of the global average, and Arctic melting is predicted to contribute to sea level rise of as much as 5 feet by the end of the century, according to the International Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program. This is more than two and a half times higher than the sea level rise projected in 2007 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In addition to causing up to half of global climate change, these short-lived climate pollutants are causing serious harm to public health. Black carbon soot kills as many as 2.4 million people each year, mostly women and children. Ground-level ozone also causes other debilitating health effects, as well as significant damage to food crops. Protecting vulnerable people and places from increasing climate impacts requires fast mitigation of short-lived climate pollutants.

Anonymous targetting tar sand developers

Intercontinental Cry reports that Anonymous announces targetting tar sands developers including Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, Canadian Oil Sands Ltd., Imperial Oil, the Royal Bank of Scotland, "and many others."

I find this interesting, I suppose, because I've always associated Anonymous with less...hm...long-term issues? I don't know, this seems like a sea change for them, and also, given that it's Anonymous, possibly a sea change for environmental activism (or at least how its viewed).

Help a Friend Out

I will accept donations via Paypal for this cause (at my email, sidra at vitale dot net, just note in the comments that it's to 'help a friend').

My friend P is going through a really tough time right now, she's homeless and unemployed and waiting on various housing lists but with no proper place to live right now. She's a good person who had to take some off time last year for medical reasons, and, like most of us, was only one 'medical reason' away from homelessness. And now that's happened. I have one of her cats, another friend as the other, and she is carrying her chihuahua with her.

So, now she's homeless and feels like a complete and utter failure because a mature grown-up who has worked all her life shouldn't be in these straits. She's in her 60s. She can't sleep out on the sidewalk. She needs help right away, and all the waiting lists with the Boston Housing Authority, and retirement income starting in a few months, all that *crap* won't help her put a roof over her head *right now*.

So, here I am, asking you, Internet, for help. I am trying to help this good friend of mine, who has always done right by other people, and lived in this neighborhood for over 20 years, keep her shit together for a few more months, or even longer.

If there are deities you talk to, please ask them to help. If you can help financially, please do. I will accept donations via Paypal, and if you are in the Boston Metro area and work for or with an organization that can help get this woman some immediate assistance, that won't require her to give up her pets, either, I'd be happy to hear from you via email (sidra at vitale dot net).

Thank you.

We Reason Better When We're Forced To Show Our Work

Interesting commentary I have not fully explored yet, however, I wanted to comment on the apparent narrowness of the principle being derived here:

The recent theory by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber about how human reasoning evolved for the purpose of argument uses as evidence findings that people get more reasonable when they argue. In other words, we reason better when we are trying to persuade. I am sure that is not a general rule, but when I read a good point-counterpoint I am struck by how much I can learn -- not just by a journalist saying "he says-she says" but a real back and forth, with supporting evidence from each side, not limited to what will fit in a 1000 word newspaper piece, as interpreted by a generalist.

"we reason better when we are trying to persuade." I conduct as well as teach legal analysis and writing, which means I think about persuasion somewhat regularly. This principle should be boiled down further to the blindingly obvious:

We reason better when we are forced to.

(When are you forced to explain why you think what you think, or, often, what your gut tells you to think? Well, among other things, when you have to convince someone else that what you think is RIGHT. That is, persuade them.)

We reason better when we make ourselves reason, rather than simply "know".

STANLEY CUP!

Woot! The parade for the Bruins is today. Too many people for me, but I watched part of it on TV.

Human Relationships: It's the Same Old Patriarchal Story.

For whatever random reason I was searching for INTJs and something on displays of emotion (for info on INTJs, see the Meyers Briggs Temperment Indicator) and ran across a thread in a forum back in '08. The guy in a relationship was asking how to better meet the emotional needs of his INTJ girlfriend.

It was very educational, in a discouraging way.

For starters, the men in it uniformly seem to be operating from the idea that INTJ women like stereotypically feminine stuff, even when they've demonstrated in the relationship (via what might be perceived to be classic masculine, i.e., emotionally closed off, behaviors) that such is not true. Basically, the patriarchy is overwhelming these poor guys' perceptions of what their relationship should be like, so they couldn't see what their relationship actually WAS like.

All of the suggestions for what the clueless INTP guy should do for his INTJ girlfriend were flowing primarily from those sexist belief structures, rather than any awareness of what INTJs might actually like. I saw one or two comments from INTJ women who actually bothered to say anything in this thread, but, when what they said ("alone time, please") was completely ignored, I was, shall we say, less than completely surprised.

For this reason, I believe I will have to update my "care and feeding of your INTJ mate" blog post that I wrote sometime in the last decade.

For now, however:

What do INTJ women want? Time. Independence. Consultation on decisions affecting both of you. Intellectual stimulation. Self-reliance - in you. (An INTJ woman has to be very disciplined to pick up after your ass, so, be a polite roommate even after marriage.) Lots and lots of alone time - which means, you go do something with your friends, and leave her behind. Seriously. Join a soccer league or bowling, or cooking class, that gets you out of the house so she can sit and read, or meditate, or take a long walk and think deep thoughts, by herself. Buy useful gifts like an emergency kit for her car - and consult her on which one she thinks is best. Tell her you were thinking going to (poetry reading, art gallery, film festival, play, CES, IEEE annual conference) might be interesting, and ask would she like to go together? If she says yes, ask her if she would like to plan the weekend/day/evening, or just play things by ear once you get there? ALWAYS follow through on plans once you've agreed to them with her. INTJs are very good at backup plans, so if Plan A is falling to pieces on the fly, call her and tell her, so she can present Plan B and you will both remain in synchronicity with each other, and she will not be nervously wondering what the hell you are doing to her tidy plan. Romantic dinners with flowers, etc., aren't that thrilling to us unless you've proposed a "romantic date night" well in advance, but browsing different sections of bookstores or libraries on a Saturday afternoon and then regrouping to share what you've discovered is lots of fun.

Attorney General Orders Board in DOMA Cancellation Case

I don't plan to make this an immigration law blog, but:

The Attorney General has ordered the Board of Immigration Appeals to make specific findings regarding a (potential) same-sex spouse's eligibility for cancellation of removal.

Cancellation of removal is a type of relief from removal granting someone a green card (permanent residency) if they have been in the U.S. for 10 years or more before being placed into removal (deportation) proceedings, are of good moral character, and show that it would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to a qualifying relative such as a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, parent, or child. Immigration and Nationality Act 240A(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1).

Here's the language of the Attorney General's order:

BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Pursuant to my authority set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i), I order that the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) in this case applying Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, be vacated, and that this matter be referred to me for review.

In the exercise of my review authority under that regulation, and upon consideration of the record in this case, I direct that the order of the Board be vacated and that this matter be remanded to the Board to make such findings as may be necessary to determine whether and how the constitutionality of DOMA is presented in this case, including, but not limited to: 1) whether respondent’s same-sex partnership or civil union qualifies him to be considered a 'spouse' under New Jersey law; 2) whether, absent the requirements of DOMA, respondent’s same-sex partnership or civil union would qualify him to be considered a 'spouse' under the Immigration and Nationality Act; 3) what, if any, impact the timing of respondent’s civil union should have on his request for that discretionary relief; and 4) whether, if he had a 'qualifying relative,' the respondent would be able to satisfy the exceptional and unusual hardship requirement for cancellation of removal.

1 U.S.C. 7 says: "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."

What 1 U.S.C. 7 means is that any time a federal agency - like the Citizenship and Immigration Service (part of the Department of Homeland Security) or the Immigration Court (part of the Department of Justice) - interprets a federal statute or federal regulation, the word 'marriage' only means opposite sex unions. Therefore, same-sex married couples are not recognized as being married.

Now, the Attorney General has stated that the Department of Justice will not defend DOMA in court under the heightened scrutiny standard. If you read the letter to House Speaker Boehner, it may not appear obvious to the lay person, but what's happening between the lines is that the AG appears to be saying the reason the DOJ can't defend the statute in court is that it would be a frivolous argument, which is unethical for a lawyer to put forward. AG Holder explains why DOJ believes that a "heightened scrutiny" analysis is required, as opposed to a rational-basis standard being applied, when examining the constitutionality of the statute. A "heightened scrutiny" analysis requires the DOJ invoke, solely, Congress's actual stated justifications for the law, and, as AG Holder puts forth, the legislative history of the statute undermines any defense the DOJ might put forward. What AG Holder says, translated into English (or at least, Sidra-English) is "we can't defend this thing, because there's no legitimate legal argument we can put forth under this legal standard". And lawyers, for all our presentation in the media as manifestations of pure evil, are not permitted to advance frivolous arguments. We face disciplinary action should we do so.

Holder is not saying that the U.S. will fail to defend the statute when the different, lower, rational-basis standard is applied, which means in federal circuits where those courts have already determined that is the appropriate standard, they'll continue to advance arguments under that standard, because the arguments available to make under that standard are legally different.

What's this got to do with the Board of Immigration Appeals? The AG can take up an issue decided by the Board and issue his own ruling. The Board hears appeals of actions taken by Immigration Courts and the Citizenship and Immigration Service (CIS) (I'm simplifying, but...) So, the AG decision above is a decision where the AG is overturning something the Board did, in response to an appeal by somebody of a decision of an Immigration Court or CIS. Executive agencies will still apply DOMA, at least according to Holder's letter to Boehner. Equally obviously, given what he says in this decision, the AG is overturning a decision where someone, either the Court/CIS, or the Board (or both), employed DOMA to, my guess, deny someone cancellation of removal because their proposed qualifying relative was a same-sex spouse.

So, maybe, that assertion in AG Holder's letter that agencies will execute the law even if not defend it when heightened scrutiny will be imposed, is less cut and dried than we might think. Can the DOJ, when tasked to act as a quasi-court (i.e., Immigration Court/Board of Immigration Appeals) do any less, when the Attorney General, the head of the agency, has articulated the proper legal standard for analyzing DOMA, and that under that standard the statute is unconstitutional?

Joanna Russ, RIP

Bye, Joanna. Your words and ideas live on, reaching into the future and touching minds you will never meet directly.