Imagine you’re a hardworking staff member for a U.S. Senator.  You’re looking at an immigration reform bill that’s nearly a thousand pages, seemingly covers a million different issues and includes provisions that will impact tens of millions of people.  Immigration isn’t necessarily your area of expertise but your boss is going to have to vote on it, so you dive in.

You’re looking at a provision, or an amendment, and trying to figure out what it means.  Not just what the legislative jargon translates to but you need to know what it will mean to real people.  Because when you’re trying to help frame potential responses to a question or issue or prep your boss to have all the information he or she needs to determine which way to vote, well, you need to really “get” the human element behind a provision.

You’re going to need to know what the consequences for real people are if this amendment or that amendment passes. The impact could be that a family is separated, that children lose a parent’s presence for years, that a brother will likely never get the chance to have his sister join him in the States, or a business will lose out on the best talent in the world.  If you could only point to an example of an immigrant or business in Senator So and So’s state that would be impacted and explain precisely how that impact would be manifested, then that real life “reality check” could make a difference.

Explaining a complicated issue by sharing an example is a far more appealing, approachable, and universal way to make the case for good immigration reform. The staff at AILA National are great, but they aren’t us.  They do not work with clients—individuals and businesses—every day and when they need an example of why immigration reform matters, they turn to us as a resource, the best resource for sympathetic stories about how our system is broken and what impact change could have.

We need to get them that information.  The problem is that we are all busy, we all want to guard our clients’ privacy and sometimes our clients are wary of sharing a story.  None of these things are necessarily insurmountable obstacles. We need to take the time to tell the story because the reality is that it takes less time to do so than we think. We need to proactively ask clients for permission to share and, if they are wary, talk to them about ways to share their story without including any identifying information to offer them a greater sense of security through anonymity. What we cannot do is rely on someone else to do this important task, because there is success in numbers. Each of us needs to share that story that kept us up at night, that made us cry with sadness or with joy or that reminded us why we do this very important work.

I was able to share a story about an anonymous business client of mine that had an L-1 denied on grounds that had nothing to do with the law or the facts, but everything to do with the paranoia surrounding investors from certain countries and the threat of offshoring. The result of the denial was that the entire department which was to be built around this worker has been eliminated in the U.S. and the company (a U.S. company with a foreign subsidiary and not the other way around) has moved all related operations offshore. This was of course the exact opposite result from the one our country needs given that it eliminated potential well-paying jobs out of ignorance. My hope is that as the Members of Congress look at this example, they will see that the very measures they are proposing to prevent offshoring and protect U.S. workers will result in the opposite. These measures are simply more stringent statutorily mandated variations of what we are already seeing as a matter of adjudicative practice and their effect has been to eliminate, not create, jobs for U.S. workers.

I have also shared several stories of DACA applicants who, under current law, are permanently barred from obtaining residence, by virtue of having claimed U.S. citizenship on the newest version of Form I-9. I know from Capitol Hill visits that many members of Congress are not fully aware of the impact and magnitude of this problem and are generally dismayed when they learn of it. My hope is that these examples will ensure that this very common and frankly relatively innocent action will not have permanent negative consequences for the very people almost everyone agrees should be helped.

Please, take a few minutes and ask your clients if you may  share a case example or encourage your clients to do so.

It may not seem like one story could make a difference, but when all of immigration law is pretty much on the table as it is right now, that’s exactly what could happen.

Submit your case examples through the tool AILA has set up online.  If you have any questions, please contact Brittany Young (byoung@aila.org).

Written by Dagmar Butte, Member, AILA Board of Governors

After working its way through 32 amendments related to border triggers and the rest of Title I at their markup last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to jump ahead on Tuesday to Title IV, which has a mixed bag of nonimmigrant provisions for business immigration.

These provisions came after what seemed like eons of negotiation between labor and business, so many of them may be considered “core” to the “Gang of Eight” bill and therefore the four members of the Gang that sit on the Judiciary Committee could vote en bloc to prevent any big changes that might endanger those compromises.

So what’s in there? Here’s a small sample:

The Temporary Visa for Lesser-Skilled Workers (W visa) addresses one of the most obvious shortcomings in previous immigration reform—future flow.  One vital component is that spouses and minor children are included and are work-authorized, providing much-needed family unity for those seeking to come to the U.S. temporarily to work.  It also importantly offers flexibility for workers by allowing them to switch from one registered employer to another, and by giving them a way to apply for the merit-based lawful permanent residence program or the employment-based system.  These elements mean that workers wouldn’t be potentially “trapped” in exploitative employment.

The drafters of the legislation are taking the slow road with the W visa by starting with a 20,000 cap on W visas, rising to 75,000 visas in four years. Conceivably, the cap could increase to 200,000, depending on operation of a formula based on unemployment, job openings, number of applications, and recommendations of a newly-created federal Bureau that would track relevant statistics.  That 20,000 starting point might be too small for the employer needs we know exist.

The most mixed portion of the bag relates to H-1Bs. The bill, by providing for an increase in the H-1B quota to a floor of 110,000 and a ceiling of 180,000, reflects an understanding that foreign talent, especially those educated in our nation’s graduate schools, can and do contribute to America’s economic growth. An amendment by Senator Hatch that might come up in tomorrow’s markup would improve this provision even further.

The bill recognizes the human face of the H-1B nonimmigrant:  it provides for work authorization for their spouses on a reciprocity basis and allows for a 60-day grace period after an H-1B nonimmigrant ceases the sponsored employment, enabling the individual to maintain lawful presence during that time.

But if the bill giveth, the bill also taketh away.  Some of the H-1B provisions are troublesome, adding burdens to what is supposed to be a visa that enables American businesses to be nimble in meeting specialty skill needs.  The bill requires invention of a new internet posting recruitment system by the Department of Labor (an agency notorious for non-reality based recruitment requirements in the permanent labor certification context), substitution of government judgment for employer judgment in who should be offered these positions of specialized skill, and a highly distorted wage requirement that will result in foreign workers being paid more—sometimes considerably more—than their U.S. citizen counterparts.

So on Tuesday, expect to see another long day of amendment consideration and voting by the committee members as they work their way through a few more of the hundreds of amendments filed last week.

By taking up Title IV this early in the markup process, the committee is showing how important it is that immigration reform not only find a solution for the 11 million undocumented, but also bring our immigration system forward into the 21^st century to meet the needs of American companies.

Really? Seriously?  Wow.

Not the most erudite comment I’ve ever made but that’s what I’m reduced to facing this week’s Amendmentpalooza.  Wow.

I’m looking at the breakdown of proposed amendments to the Senate immigration reform bill (S. 744).  AILA National is conducting careful analysis of the hundreds of amendments, figuring out how they would impact our new favorite reading choice, the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.”

In digging through the 300 amendments proposed by Democrats and Republicans alike, they have found some doozies.  These potential poison pills should be required reading for any immigration attorney, and, for that matter, any business owner and especially for any resident of several states from whom the Senators hail who proposed these outlandish amendments.

This is a bipartisan bill.  That already requires compromise on both sides, but accepting the following amendments wouldn’t be compromising, it would be putting nails in the coffin of a decent immigration bill and burying America’s future with it.

Apparently gutting the legalization process sounds good to several Senators.  Taken together the provisions would essentially ensure that pretty much no one qualified for permanent status—oh, and if Sen. Cruz has his way, no one who was ever willfully unlawfully present would ever get citizenship.  Nope, they’re unworthy.  I’m just surprised that there wasn’t a Scarlet Letter amendment in there too, forcing legalized immigrants to wear an “A” for Amnesty for the rest of their lives.

Businesses would get a pretty harsh wake-up call too, per Sen. Grassley, who would play havoc with the business immigration policies to the extent that American businesses seeking to hire foreign talent—the kind that leads to American jobs and global competitiveness—would be shut out.  At some point, you make an immigration category so difficult that no one will apply.  On the upside, I guess we wouldn’t need to hold an H-1B lottery ever again.

There is amendment after amendment that would roll our immigration policy backward instead of moving it forward, to prevent families from being reunited, and to throw more money at ineffective border security measures, rather than investing in enforcement that will actually make our country safer.  Oh, let’s not forget the amendments that would gut due process and eliminate training for DHS agents in things like civil rights.

Don’t get me wrong—a few stalwart Senators from both sides are offering potentially good amendments, to reunite families, ensure a more inclusive legalization process, and make our immigration system better.  How many of those might be included in any final bill is anyone’s guess.  Again, this is a bipartisan, compromise process so no one will be completely happy but the flip side is that with a decent bill, no one will be entirely disappointed either.

Some things require compromise, but worthless amendments that only serve to destroy the workable framework that the Senate “Gang of Eight” and their staff have built have no place in this process. If you’re in one of the states with a Judiciary Committee member, or have a client from that state, get calls in to your Senators, email their offices, reach out to contacts you made through AILA’s National Day of Action or in-state meetings.  Reach out to local reporters to talk about what is wrong with some of these amendments and why even proposing them is an overt effort to derail immigration reform that our nation desperately needs.  Your voices—and the voices of your clients—need to be heard, but they won’t be, unless you speak out.

Listen carefully.  That ‘click’ ‘click’ ‘click’ sound you hear isn’t your clock.  Around the country, and potentially around the world, immigration advocates and restrictionists alike are hitting the “refresh” button over and over and over again on a Senate Judiciary Committee website.  Why? What’s so special about this website?

This website isn’t just special, it is extraordinary.  It is unique in the history of immigration reform.  It is the fulfillment of a promise by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) who has told his fellow Judiciary Committee members that all proposed amendments to S. 744, the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act” must be filed by 5p.m. today and will be posted publicly on this website: http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/legislation/immigration/amendments.cfm

‘Click’ ‘click’ ‘click…we’re waiting.  We’re waiting to see what amendments will be offered by the 18 members of the committee.

We know already there will be a sponsors’ amendment, which would replace the current bill with an 867 page corrected version that fixes some errors and typos, and clarifies some things that caused confusion in the original 844 page bill.  The sponsors’ amendment is the equivalent of a shoe-in (see AILA’s updated section-by-section analysis showing the changes here: http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=44283)

‘Click’

Senator Leahy himself has posted an amendment: it would prohibit the establishment of a border crossing fee at land borders for pedestrians or passenger vehicles.

‘Click’

Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) has posted four amendments thus far.

‘Click”

So far, nothing else has been posted.  But because of Chairman Leahy’s leadership, we know where we’ll be looking, and for the first time the American public is guaranteed the chance to review the proposed amendments before the Senate Judiciary Committee begins the markup process later this week.  That is a win for a transparent government, reflecting the values on which our country was built.

‘Click’

We’re waiting.  We’re watching.

Things are different this time around.

The passion is different, the energy is different and, most of all, America is different.  As Congress gets ready to take on what is arguably the most contentious issue in the country, there is no mistaking it: America is ready to create an immigration process that will protect our borders, keep our families safe and together, give our businesses the tools they need to compete in the global economy, and provide a roadmap to citizenship for the 11 million aspiring citizens currently living in the shadows.

And why are things different?  Here’s what’s changed since 2007, the last time an immigration bill was presented to Congress:

1.       The Latino Vote

The 2012 presidential election will be remembered not only for the re-election of the first African-American president, but for the power of the Latino vote.  To be sure, as Americans, Latinos are concerned about issues other than immigration—including health care, the economy, gun violence, and education.  But for them, the broken immigration system is personal.  It doesn’t go away with the flick of a television switch. Many Latino voters have a family member or close friend entangled in the web of arcane rules and confusing regulations known as U.S. immigration law.  Someone in their life–a parent, a brother, a cousin, a friend– is threatened with deportation.

Last year, President Obama, after presiding over record numbers of deportations during his first term, promised Latino voters that if re-elected he would put immigration reform at the top of his “to do” list.  Governor Romney, on the other hand, embraced restrictionists like Kris Kobach and Joe Arpaio, railed against “amnesty” and promised Latinos little more than “self-deportation”.

The lesson of the election: Latinos are a formidable force in American politics and can no longer be ignored.

2.       The DREAMERs Are Now Doers

A funny thing happened since the DREAM Act was first introduced in 2001.  The DREAMERs grew up.  And they grew up as Americans, watching football, going to homecoming dances, eating hotdogs on the 4^th of July and dreaming about giving back to the country they’ve struggled against all odds to enrich. They are no longer the helpless children who were brought to the U.S. by their parents.  Today they are, in effect, undocumented Americans.

Through masterful use of 21^st century tools like Facebook and Twitter, coupled with old fashioned organizing and courage, the DREAMERs have become a key voice in the struggle for immigration reform.  They, more than any other group, deserve the lion’s share of credit for pushing the Administration to grant an administrative deportation reprieve to qualified undocumented youth last year.

And for DREAMERs there is no giving up on their journey toward US citizenship.  They will no longer take no for an answer.

 3.      There Has Been Unprecedented Immigration Enforcement

Unlike in 2007, today the border is secure. A recent report published by the American Immigration Lawyers Association found that the border security benchmarks of the past immigration reform bills have been met or exceeded. These include improvements in border infrastructure and technology, detention facilities, and increased border personnel. In fact illegal crossings are down to their lowest levels in 40 years.

4.       Business and Labor Agree on a Guest Worker Program

The fact that business and labor could come to an agreement on a guest worker program — perhaps one of the most contentious issues in the immigration reform debate — means the energy is there, the desire is there, and the need is there for immigration reform this year. And if the AFL-CIO and U.S. Chamber of Commerce can find common ground, then Democrats and Republicans in Washington can too.

5.       The American Public Supports Immigration Reform

According to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll 76% of Americans support creating an immigration process that includes a roadmap to citizenship for the 11 million new American immigrants if they pay a fine, back taxes and complete a background check.  Most Americans, 54% according to the poll, believe immigration strengthens America—that’s up from 47% a year ago.

So, that’s why we’re here, in this place, at this moment, ready to move forward on immigration reform. The time is now, now is the time.

As the Senate gets ready to unveil the details for what is to be the biggest reform of our immigration laws this week, families across our nation hope their fears and struggles will be ended or at least eased with the new laws.  A major concern revolves around the definition of marriage for the purposes of our immigration laws.

The U.S Supreme Court recently heard arguments on the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  The effect of its decision will be felt on families across the country.  At the center of the Supreme Court decision is Section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.  This federal provision defining marriage effectively prevents legally married same-sex couples from receiving any federal benefits.  Because immigration law is federal law, legally married binational couples are prevented from applying for immigration benefits.  But even if the Supreme Court strikes down Section 3 of DOMA, the inequality for binational couples will likely not end.

DOMA consists of three sections. Section 3, currently before the Supreme Court challenging the definition of marriage, and Section 2, which expressly reserves the power for each State to establish its own rules for marriage equality.

Specifically Section 2 of DOMA notes that States are not required to give effect to any other State’s recognition of a same-sex marriage.  This provision was specifically included to address the concern that States who do not allow for marriage equality would not have to recognize the same from other states.  This provision, which has not been challenged, allows any State in the Union to enact their own DOMA-like statutes to prevent recognition of legally valid same-sex marriages entered into in other states or even internationally.  Consequently, a legally married same-sex couple in a state where marriage equality is recognized may be denied the recognition of their union in other states.  There are currently 38 U.S. states that have banned same-sex marriage, either through legislation or constitutional amendments.

Although, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not define marriage, the Department of Homeland Security has traditionally looked to the state laws to determine if a marriage is valid for immigration purposes or not.  Without a clear federal definition of marriage and family, the application of immigration laws for the LGBT community will vary from state to state.  As a result, binational families will face continued discrimination in certain parts of the country.   Some legally married same-sex couples who can afford it, may have to establish dual residences in different states in order to prevent deportation from the U.S.

This will result in the creation of an underclass of Americans who aren’t able to enjoy equal protection under the law.

The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) will ensure what its title promises; namely uniting all American families regardless of their sexual orientation, abode, or socioeconomic status. Specifically, UAFA would give binational same-sex couples the same immigration rights afforded to heterosexual couples — including the right to petition for green cards for partners or spouses. UAFA must be an integral part of reforming our dysfunctional immigration laws to ensure fairness and equality by allowing U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to sponsor their same-sex, foreign-born partners for immigration purposes . It’s the right thing to do and it is the best way to preserve the American values of family, unity, and equality.

Written by Annaluisa Padilla, AILA Secretary, and Ally Bolour, Member, AILA Media-Advocacy Committee

On Wednesday, April 10, just the day before AILA’s National Day of Action kicked off in Washington, DC, tens of thousands of protesters marched on the Capitol in support of immigration reform.  Advocates came by foot, car, bus, train, and plane from all over the country.  They held signs telling their stories, or the stories of those dear to them, as they called on Congress to make real change happen this time.

Political momentum seems to be in favor of a bipartisan immigration reform agreement, with the Gang of Eight continuing their work and expected to release a bill perhaps as early as next Tuesday that will offer a path to legalization for the undocumented, and hopefully an overhaul of the patchwork of dysfunctional immigration policies that make up our legal immigration “system” as well.  I’ve been working in immigration law for over 30 years.  I lived through the hope and dismay of 2006, 2007 and 2010.  Amid this march and all the echo events across the country, with the polls and the politicians seemingly lining up in favor of reform, I feel more encouraged than ever.

Reform seems to be within reach. It’s clearly different this time. You can almost feel it in the air.  A newfound courage by key Congressional leadership from both sides of the aisle, being cheered on by Evangelicals in the South, business and trade organization leaders in our financial hubs and industrial cities, moms and dads throughout America’s heartland, all rallying together and recognizing that we can no longer be indifferent.

For those of you who want to have your say, tools to reach out to media are available on InfoNet which I encourage all of you to personalize and use to share the real impact of immigration reform and what it can mean for families, the economy, and our nation.  Photos from the rally are also posted on AILA’s Facebook page.

Washington, D.C. itself seemed to welcome the marchers with gorgeous early summertime weather and blossoming trees.  Let’s hope Congress listens to its leadership and also welcomes the voices of immigrants and their champions and shows us all what good policy looks like.

Last week the Associated Press (AP) changed its style manual so that the term “Illegal” is to be used to describe an action or procedure, but not a person.  No more “illegal immigrant” in AP stories.

News organizations have debated the use of the term “illegal immigrant” before because it provokes such a strong negative reaction from many people.  “No person is illegal” has been a popular sign and bumper sticker since the push for immigration reform started in earnest in 2005.

The problem has been what to use instead?  Some prefer “undocumented immigrant” but this term provokes an equally negative reaction in others that say it is disingenuous and suggests that no law has been broken.  Still others have pushed for “unauthorized immigrant” as a compromise that refers to the administrative nature of most immigration rules.

AP came to its decision from a different angle.  After talking with advocates for those with mental illness, they learned that people preferred to be referred to as “diagnosed with schizophrenia” rather than “a schizophrenic”, for example.

Following this reasoning, they realized what immigration advocates had been saying:  Labeling people objectifies them.  We don’t care very much about objects (that don’t have feelings or relationships).  The genocide in Rwanda, for instance, gained momentum when members of one tribe starting publicly referring to members of the other as “cockroaches”.

“Illegal immigrant” is also less accurate.  For example, a news story about a person not legally present in the U.S. that is hoping the law will change and allow him to stay would invoke a different reaction if the person is a 20-year-old that has been here since he was 2 than if it was a 50-year-old that came here last year on a visitor visa and refused to leave.  Defaulting to the term “Illegal immigrant” does not tell the whole story.

The question for immigration reform is whether AP’s decision is a style change only, or if it signals (or will facilitate) a broader attitude change that will lead to honest debate and problem solving.  Here’s hoping.

Written by Lori Chesser, Vice Chair, USCIS Benefits Policy Liaison Committee

With all the buzz about immigration reform, why apply for deferred action now? For those who were waiting to see how the elections turned out or whether the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or “DACA” program was “real” and not just a trick, the answer is clear: if you are eligible for deferred action, applying now is still the smart way to go, regardless of what Congress does—or doesn’t do—with Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR).

• If you qualify for deferred action, a grant can mean an incredible opportunity to take charge of your future. DACA relief includes a work permit and you can apply separately for permission to travel outside the US without abandoning your deferred action status.
• In many states, having an immigration work permit means you are eligible to apply for a driver’s license or other official identification. That means you can open a bank account, start a business, apply for a job, establish your credit, get professional training or start your career. Some states are even welcoming young immigrants to higher education at resident or near-resident student rates.
• If you “wait and see” what happens with CIR, you may be putting yourself (and your family) at risk. Immigrants granted deferred action are considered a “low priority” for enforcement. Unless that changes—for example, because you commit a crime or serious immigration violation—someone with deferred action is unlikely to face arrest, detention or deportation by immigration officials.
• Many proposals already hint at providing a more direct pathway to citizenship for DREAMers. While nothing has been decided yet, it makes sense that people who have already completed the background checks and application process for deferred action might be at the front of that line and have an easier time establishing eligibility.
• A majority of Americans believe that smart immigration reform is critical for our country’s future, and that a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented is a fair and practical solution for the millions of undocumented. The opportunity to fix our broken immigration system is better than ever, but there are no guarantees and real reform could be derailed by partisan politics.

Get the facts and don’t get scammed! Not every young immigrant qualifies for deferred action, and some people have better options for immigration relief that offer a more direct or permanent path to citizenship. Only a lawyer can give you the advice you need to decide whether applying for deferred action is safe and smart, for you.

For AILA members and other stakeholders, there are a lot of easy ways to get the word out to potential applicants in your area. Check out the eight different print Public Service Announcements (PSAs) that AILA has developed to use in our outreach to the community about Deferred Action.

Ronald Reagan once said that “All great change in America begins at the dinner table”.

He was right.

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner is a 1967 American drama film starring Spencer Tracy, Sidney Poitier and Katharine Hepburn. The film considered the then controversial subject of interracial marriage, which had been illegal in most states, and was still illegal in 17 states, until June 12, 1967, when anti-miscegenation laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia.

The plot centers on a daughter’s return to her affluent American home in San Francisco, bringing her new fiancé to dinner to meet her parents. She finds it difficult to comprehend her liberal parents’ reaction to her plan to marry an African American. While they taught her to treat others as equals, the parents strike a different tone when it comes to their daughter’s choice of a life mate. The fiancé’s parents fly up from Los Angeles to the dinner but, like the parents of the bride to be, they are shocked when they learn their son intends to enter into an interracial marriage. The dinner evolves from an awkward dinner party to a meeting of tolerance and understanding as family and friends try to accept the couple’s choice.

Today the subject of Immigration Reform can also make for an uncomfortable dinner party. Like the gradual but important acceptance of interracial marriage in the 1960s, immigration concerns the evolution of America’s dearly held founding principles.

By recently reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, Congress rightly reiterated that we are a Nation which will continue to protect our most vulnerable members of society – women and children. Congress proved it can put politics aside and work together to do the right thing for women and for America. As our leaders come together to continue the dialogue on the reform of our immigration system – the parameters have been set.

To start, on January 29, 2013 President Obama outlined his principles for immigration reform: maintaining border security, building a path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented, stopping employers who game the system by illegally employing unauthorized immigrants, and streamlining our legal immigration procedures to ensure family unity for all Americans, including same-sex couples.

The Senate bipartisan framework for immigration reform presented on January 28, 2013 sets forth similar principles for reform but it does not mention binational same sex couples.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) lead the effort in the Senate last year by introducing the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). UAFA would give binational same-sex couples the same immigration rights afforded to heterosexual couples — including the right to petition for green cards for partners or spouses. She has made clear that she is committed to getting the legislation passed, either on its own or as part of comprehensive immigration reform package. UAFA was reintroduced in the House as a bipartisan bill for the first time this past February. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) reintroduced the bill with the backing of Reps. Charlie Dent (R-PA) and Richard Hanna (R-NY). They signed on in support of the bill last year, but the legislation has never before been introduced with Republican co-sponsors.

The inclusion of same-sex bi-national couples as part of an immigration reform package has received support from many advocates, including the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) even legally-married same-sex couples are unable to petition for legal status for a foreign-born member. This translates into partners being separated by deportation or the inability to obtain visas, with couples at times living apart for long periods of time or leaving the United States entirely.

The Williams Institute at UCLA estimated in 2011 that there were about 40,000 couples who were ineligible to receive the same treatment on immigration as heterosexual couples. Nearly 25,000 children had parents who fit into that category, according to the institute.

As members of Congress come together at the “dinner” table to discuss the reform of our dysfunctional immigration system there is no question that immigration benefits for same sex binational couples should be part of the conversation and proposed reforms.

You heard right, guess who’s coming to dinner? Our nation’s history, founding principles and evolution are all indicators that the dinner table can no longer be missing an important member of our society. LGBT families are truly part of the American family, and not just a partisan political issue. There are many who may be “shocked and offended and appalled”, but the time is here and the time is now to end all the prejudices, bigotry, blind hatred and irrational fears surrounding two individuals falling in love and building a family.

The reform of our immigration system must demonstrate that America is a nation of values, founded on the idea that all people are created equal and that all people have rights, no matter what they look like, where they came from, or what their sexual orientation is.

America must seize this historic opportunity. As Spencer Tracy’s character taught us, it does not matter what others think of another’s relationship. What is important is how much they feel for each other and if it is half of what we feel for our loved ones, that’s everything!