Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION Even though Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and New Hampshire perform same-sex marriages, (1) as do Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, and Spain, (2) a gay American citizen or lawful permanent resident who marries in those jurisdictions cannot sponsor her spouse immigrate United States. (3) As a result, over 35,820 same-sex couples must choose between living in their native country alone or being with their spouse abroad. (4) Unlike foreign spouse in a heterosexual couple who can obtain a permanent visa relatively quickly, foreign member of a same-sex couple has limited options legally immigrate United States. In best-case scenario, foreign national might have a parent or sibling who can sponsor her. The wait for a family-based visa sponsored by a parent or sibling immigrate United States takes between four and ten years. (5) A second option is secure an employment visa. Employment visas are contingent on foreign national's skill level and labor needs in United States. Yet, even if a foreign national meets criteria, person could wait anywhere between a few months and nine years. (6) The protracted wait and uncertainty of obtaining any type of visa makes it unfeasible for most same-sex binational couples permanently live in United States together. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is main impediment same-sex couples receiving immigration benefits. (7) DOMA, a federal law, defines as a union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and further states that the word 'spouse' refers only a person of opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. (8) Explicitly defining marriage as between a man and a woman means that immigration officials can recognize only heterosexual marriages for purposes of granting family visas. (9) Congress has ability bar same-sex marriage immigration through DOMA due plenary power doctrine. The plenary power doctrine states that power regulate immigration is an inherent power of a sovereign nation; Congress's ability aliens ... [is not] open controversy. (10) Hence, Congress can exclude a foreigner because of her sexual orientation or because it does not choose recognize her marriage an American citizen. Because of plenary power doctrine, Congress's authority exclude aliens without legally recognized marriages is not open legal challenge. So this Note focuses on effect of DOMA on same-sex marriage immigration. This Note asks two questions: (1) Whether DOMA is only obstacle same-sex marriage immigration, and (2) Whether, if DOMA were repealed, would Americans who marry foreign nationals of same sex be able sponsor their partners for family visas. These questions are not solely theoretical; there are indications that eventually DOMA will be repealed or amended. In Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, a lawsuit filed in a Massachusetts federal district court in March 2009, plaintiff argues that DOMA should be struck down because it targets gays and lesbians for discrimination in its denial of federal benefits for spouses of federal employees. (11) Gill is currently being litigated in district court, but because of importance of federal questions involved, it could go before Supreme Court. (12) Even if Gill does not dismantle DOMA, it represents a concerted legal effort challenge law. Furthermore, President Barack Obama supports repealing DOMA. (13) While gay rights advocates believe President Obama has done little in his first year in office help gay community, and in fact his Department of Justice has filed briefs in support of DOMA, (14) he maintains he is committed promoting civil rights for gays and lesbians. In October 2009, for example, Obama administration filed papers stating that administration wishes repeal DOMA because it prevents equal rights and benefits, but in meantime Justice Department is obligated to defend federal statutes when they are challenged in court. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».