‘Til Death Do Us Part: Affidavits of Support and Obligations to Immigrant Spouses

This article analyzes the use of a federal affidavit of support, a required document that forms part of all family immigration petitions to overcome public charge grounds of inadmissibility. The federal statute mandating affidavits of support was altered in 1996 in an attempt to make them contractually binding, even after the dissolution of marriage. Further, affidavits of support implicate not only obligations between spouses, but also deeming analysis for public benefit eligibility. Case law interpreting these affidavits of support is scarce and varied, but trends, patterns, and contested issues are emerging. Yet courts have not settled on any theory and practice for incorporating these affidavits into their decisions related to family dissolution. This article provides an introduction to affidavits of support and an initial effort to frame the most critical issues related to them that arise in family litigation. This article also highlights some of the key strategic issues and caveats for litigants and parties.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• An introduction to affidavits of support and the immigration law context in which it exists
• A review of trends, patterns, and contested issues emerging in available judicial decisions in state and federal courts
• Key strategic issues and caveats for litigants and parties on the use of affidavits of support

     

Transformation: the Progression of Immigration Petitions for Transgender Spouses

U.S. citizens who marry foreign nationals may petition for their spouses so that the couple can reside permanently together in the United States. The guidelines set forth in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Adjudicator's Field Manual provide guidance to immigration officials for determining whether to grant or deny spousal petitions. Previously, the Adjudicator's Field Manual imposed a requirement that transgender individuals undergo costly and dangerous sex reassignment surgery in order to qualify as married for the purposes of a spousal petition. However, revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual issued in April 2012 provide transgender binational couples the opportunity to remain together in the United States without forcing one partner to undergo sex reassignment surgery. Given the history of discrimination against transgender individuals under U.S. immigration law, these revisions are a significant step in equality for transgender couples. Although these revisions provide many transgender binational couples with a means to remain together in the United States, this Note proposes that, to continue on the path toward equality for transgender couples, special guidelines should not be applied to marriages involving transgender partners if their marriage is deemed a valid heterosexual marriage in the state where solemnized. The goals of U.S. immigration law and compliance with the federal definition of marriage can be achieved without implementing individualized guidelines for transgender binational couples.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Transgender spouses of a binational couple should not be subjected to additional guidelines when submitting spousal petitions that, if granted, would afford the couple the opportunity to reside together in the United States
• Transgender individuals should not be subjected to disparate treatment solely because the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services seeks to enforce discriminatory provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act
• A marriage should be recognized by immigration law if it is a valid marriage under the law of the state where the marriage was celebrated
• In order to achieve U.S. immigration law's mission of family unification, nontraditional couples should be afforded the same opportunity to remain together in the United States without additional scrutiny

     

The Law of Property of Spouses

The law of property of spouses regulates and protects that form of distribution of material goods within the family which exists in socialist society. It is distinguished by the fact that the only parties to this law are citizens in a state of matrimony.     

Dignity and Equality

Inequality remains one of the most challenging issues on theglobal human rights agenda. It is widely recognised that a formalapproach to the assessment of inequality has failed to eliminateentrenched structural social and economic inequality and thata different approach is required in order to tackle the rootsof inequality and achieve substantive equality. In seeking toimplement an approach to equality that addresses the historyof apartheid and the social and economic inequality endemicin South African society, the South African Constitutional Courthas rejected formal equality, and is in the process of developinga substantive interpretation of equality based on the protectionof human dignity. Critics of this approach have argued thatthe concept of human dignity is too indeterminate to providea stable foundation for equality law and that it promotes anexcessively individualistic conception of equality. Focussingon key developments in defining human dignity in German andSouth African constitutional law, this article argues that theconcept of dignity is rooted in a rich tradition which is capableof underpinning an approach to equality which avoids excessiveindividualism and fully recognises the interplay between individualand community needs. A detailed exploration of the equalityjurisprudence of the South African Constitutional Court revealshow the dignity-based approach has been developed in order toprovide a framework within which the actual experience of victimsof discrimination can be explored. It is concluded that thisapproach has the potential to engage with the realities of thewide range of divisions within South African society and theireffects in order to address not only the legacy of apartheidbut also to contribute to the creation of a society in whichevery person is valued equally.     

Equality

“Equality” is a notion about which disagreement arises not simply due to lack of clarity and precision (or intellectual dishonesty and bad faith). Rather, equality is an idea that implies and implicates some form of disagreement as a constitutive possibility of its horizon of discussion. This, in my view, is both a problem and an opportunity. I submit that equality is a plural notion: There are only equalities, practices aimed at removing situated circumstances of inequality and discrimination.     

夫妻侵权责任探微

法制日益健全 ,人们维权意识不断增强 ,建立夫妻之间侵权责任体系的社会基础已经形成。该体系在运用民法的一般原理处理夫妻共同体内部平等主体之间的侵权纠纷的同时 ,又要考虑到夫妻之间特殊的亲情关系与伦理性调整的特点 ,应努力将法律调整的强制性与民事调整的任意性以及道德调整的广泛性有机结合 ,为建立文明、稳定、和睦的婚姻家庭关系服务。     

论建立夫妻间侵权责任制度

夫妻间侵权责任具有与一般侵权责任不同的特征。我国建立夫妻侵权责任制度既有必要又有可能。构建我国夫妻间侵权责任制度,需要一般侵权行为法与亲属法、婚内侵权责任与离婚侵权责任相结合,明确侵权行为范围,合理确定侵权行为造成的损害,建立以赔偿损失为主要方式、财产责任和非财产责任相结合的责任体系,正确界定侵权责任主体和请求权主体,限定请求权行使的期间。     

平等权原则与宽容——以平等和自由的关系为向度

平等和自由之间是存在张力的,且经常表现为一种矛盾关系。国家强制平等往往通过一定的制度来实现,而这种制度如果不能在自由与平等之间保持某种适度平衡,就会导致来自国家或社会的歧视与缺乏宽容。就平等权原则在世界各国宪法上的规定及其实践而言,虽然不同国家的宪政制度和法治文化传统不同,但都体现了宽容的内在性要求,一如美国的"平等保护原则"和德国的"法律上的平等与禁止恣意原则"。鉴于我国人民代表大会制度下的"立法归类"可能造成的歧视和不宽容,将"法律面前人人平等"单纯理解为平等权或法律适用上的平等原则,都是不甚妥当的,它仍然有进一步诠释的余地。在更为根本的宪法原则层面,宽容理念要求确立社会法治国原则,以对传统法治国原则进行修正,以进一步调和自由与平等之间的内在紧张关系。     

Equality and Marriage in Vico

The subject of this paper is the relationship between marriage and equality in Giambattista Vico. In his writings Vico gives the notion of marriage a unique importance, not framed on any oversized notion of nature or natural law but on the political fight for the right to marry (a quest for full citizenship status). The right to marry is linked with complex dynamics of human equality, and to a notion of human nature shaped by belief‐dependent institutions.     

实质平等和非歧视法

引　言根据对平等和非歧视的一般性理解,拥有平等地位的个人应得到平等的对待。为了在实际中应用这一理念,我们有必要对两个人或两类人进行比较,并得出关于他们之间共同点和不同点的结论。如无正当理由,对地位平等的两个人给予不同的对待就构成了歧视。这种实现平等的方法经常被称做形式平等。形式平等方法在适用于男性和女性时存在不足。首先,形式平等的概念很难应用于无男性参照者的情况,比如有关母性和怀孕的问题。其次,形式平等方法在处理差别待遇的性别中立标准问题时可能没有效果。第三,形式平等方法通常并不足以实现“机会平等”或“…     

Political Liberties and Social Equality

This paper examines the link between political liberties and social equality, and contends that the former are constitutive of, i.e. necessary to secure, the latter. Although this constitutive link is often assumed in the literature on political liberties, the reasons why it holds true remain largely unexplored. Three such reasons are examined here. First, political liberties are constitutive of social equality because they bestow political power on their holders, leaving disenfranchised individuals excluded from decisions that are particularly pervasive, coercively enforced, hard to avoid, monopolistic, and final. Second, they are constitutive of social equality due to their positional value, such that those who are denied such liberties are socially downgraded because and to the extent that others enjoy them. Third, they are constitutive of social equality due to their expressive value, in the sense that, by disenfranchising some individuals, the state publicly fails to recognize their equal moral agency. While unpacking these reasons, we address some criticisms of this constitutive link recently raised by Steven Wall and Jason Brennan.     

Authority, Equality and Democracy

Abstract.  The purpose of this essay is to argue that considerations of fairness play an essential role in the justification of democratic decision procedures. The first part argues that considerations of fairness form part of a practical authority's legitimacy, and that in the political context, those considerations of fairness entail a principle of equal distribution of political power. Subsequently, the article elaborates on the kind of equality which is required in democratic procedures, arguing that different principles of equality should apply to the deliberation and the decision stages of democracy. Finally, the article concludes with a few sketchy remarks on the possible relations between considerations of fairness and soundness of democratic procedures.     

Roemer on Responsibility and Equality

Law and Philosophy -     

和谐社会呼唤立法平等

和谐社会的核心问题是协调好人与人的利益关系,利益关系在法律上表现为权利义务关系。当前我国出现一些不和谐现象的一个重要原因是立法上的权利义务分配不均。只有立法贯彻普遍平等的原则,赋予每个人平等的权利和义务,做到立法平等,才能使我们的社会利益趋于均衡,实现社会和谐。     

Spousal Violence and Alcohol/Drug Problems Among Parolees and Their Spouses

The relationships of alcohol and drug problems to spousal violence for a sample of male parolees (n = 82) and their spouses were investigated. Alcohol problems were present in 76% of the parolees and 56% of the spouses. Seventy three percent of the parolees and 40% of the spouses reported using some type of illegal drug on a regular basis. Both parolees and their spouses gave reports on his and her spousal violence. During the three months preceding the interviews, 78% of the parolees and 72% of the spouses perpetrated moderate violence; 33% of the parolees and 39% of the spouses perpetrated severe violence. Regression analyses revealed that his alcohol problems increased the level of his violence when there were no drug problems, and that either of their alcohol problems increased the level of his violence. Given the high rates of spousal violence and the interrelationships with alcohol/drug problems, intervention efforts aimed at addressing family violence are needed.     

论平等权的立法保护

平等权是一项基本人权,保障平等权的实现是摆在我国法律工作者面前的一项重要课题。除了司法权、执法权受平等权拘束外,立法权也应受平等权的拘束,这就要求从立法上来设立平等权保护的标准,亦即合理差别对待的标准。而平等权立法保护的实现有赖于在我国切实建立起违宪审查制度,并加强有关平等权保护的立法工作。     

Discrimination, Equality and Social Inclusion

Although laws against discrimination have conventionally been justified and articulated according to various conceptions of equality, tensions between different notions of equality undermine the coherence of these explanations. The aim of social inclusion is proposed as part of an alternative justification for discrimination laws. As well as exploring the meaning and implications of the policy of social inclusion for discrimination laws, the extent to which the law already embodies this idea is assessed with particular reference to the scope of anti-discrimination laws, proof of discrimination, justification defences, and positive discrimination. It is concluded that the goal of social inclusion has the potential to provide a vital ingredient in a more coherent, though not uncritical, account of the aims of anti-discrimination legislation.