04 21 2015
  7:45 am  
     •     
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Default
  • Title
  • Date
  • Random
  • When should we use military to enforce US goals? NASHUA, N.H. (AP) — Rand Paul lashed out Saturday at military hawks in the Republican Party in a clash over foreign policy dividing the packed GOP presidential field. Paul, a first-term senator from Kentucky who favors a smaller U.S. footprint in the world, said that some of his Republican colleagues would do more harm in international affairs than would leading Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton. "The other Republicans will criticize the president and Hillary Clinton for their foreign policy, but they would just have done the same thing — just 10 times over," Paul said on the closing day of a New Hampshire GOP conference that brought about 20 presidential prospects to the first-in-the-nation primary state. "There's a group of folks in our party who would have troops in six countries right now, maybe more," Paul said. Foreign policy looms large in the presidential race as the U.S. struggles to resolve diplomatic and military conflicts across the globe. The GOP presidential class regularly rails against President Barack Obama's leadership on the world stage, yet some would-be contenders have yet to articulate their own positions, while others offered sharply different visions. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, whose brother, President George W. Bush, authorized the 2003 invasion of Iraq, declined to say whether he would have done anything different then. Yet Jeb Bush acknowledged a shift in his party against new military action abroad. "Our enemies need to fear us, a little bit, just enough for them to deter the actions that create insecurity," Bush said earlier in the conference. He said restoring alliances "that will create less likelihood of America's boots on the ground has to be the priority, the first priority of the next president." The GOP's hawks were well represented at the event, led by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has limited foreign policy experience but articulated a muscular vision during his Saturday keynote address. Walker said the threats posed by radical Islamic terrorism won't be handled simply with "a couple bombings." "We're not going to wait till they bring the fight to us," Walker said. "We're going to bring the fight to them and fight on their soil." South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham addressed the question of putting U.S. troops directly in the battle against the Islamic State group militants by saying there is only one way to defeat the militants: "You go over there and you fight them so they don't come here." Texas Sen. Ted Cruz suggested an aggressive approach as well. "The way to defeat ISIS is a simple and clear military objective," he said. "We will destroy them." Businesswoman Carly Fiorina offered a similar outlook. "The world is a more dangerous and more tragic place when America is not leading. And America has not led for quite some time," she said. Under Obama, a U.S.-led coalition of Western and Arab countries is conducting regular airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria. The U.S. also has hundreds of military advisers in Iraq helping Iraqi security forces plan operations against the Islamic State, which occupies large chunks of northern and western Iraq. Paul didn't totally reject the use of military force, noting that he recently introduced a declaration of war against the Islamic State group. But in an interview with The Associated Press, he emphasized the importance of diplomacy. He singled out Russia and China, which have complicated relationships with the U.S., as countries that could contribute to U.S. foreign policy interests. "I think the Russians and the Chinese have great potential to help make the world a better place," he said. "I don't say that naively that they're going to, but they have the potential to." Paul suggested the Russians could help by getting Syrian President Bashar Assad to leave power. "Maybe he goes to Russia," Paul said. Despite tensions with the U.S., Russia and China negotiated alongside Washington in nuclear talks with Iran. Paul has said he is keeping an open mind about the nuclear negotiations. "The people who already are very skeptical, very doubtful, may not like the president for partisan reasons," he said, and "just may want war instead of negotiations."
    Read More
  • A number of the bills now before the Oregon State Legislature protect parties who have experienced domestic violence or sexual assault  
    Read More
  • Some lawmakers, sensing a tipping point, are backing the parents and teachers who complain about 'high stakes' tests   
    Read More
  • Watch Rachel Maddow interview VA Secretary Robert McDonald  
    Read More
load morehold SHIFT key to load allload all

(CNN) -- Melanie Servetas lived the American dream. She had a six-figure salary as an executive with Wells Fargo, a Jaguar and a three-bedroom house in sunny Southern California. But then, she fell in love.

She met someone from Brazil on an online dating service. They chatted over the Internet and by phone for five months and decided they wanted to be together.

That's where this simple love story gets very complicated.

Servetas' partner is a woman, Claudia Amaral. If she were a man, the two could get married and Servetas could apply for her spouse to be admitted to the United States and eventually gain permanent residency.

But current immigration law does not allow a U.S. citizen in a same-sex relationship to sponsor his or her spouse or partner. There are nearly 30,000 such couples in America who now find themselves in the crosshairs of two critical national debates: the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, and immigration reform.

Even if Servetas were to marry Amaral in the District of Columbia or one of the 12 states that allow gay marriage, that marriage would be invisible as far as immigration law is concerned. Servetas could not sponsor her wife because of DOMA, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

So Servetas, 48, gave up her life in the United States and moved to Brazil, where she launched an information technology company. The company is struggling and Servetas misses everything about America. But she cannot imagine a life without Amaral.

"Our life is surrounded by uncertainty. We live in limbo all the time," she said, not knowing if one day her work visa in Brazil might not be extended. She goes to sleep every night worrying that tomorrow, she may be separated from the woman she loves.

The Supreme Court is poised to hand down a decision on DOMA any day. If the justices strike it down, bi-national gay couples will gain the same immigration rights as heterosexual married couples.

At the same time, Patrick Leahy, a Democratic senator from Vermont, has filed an amendment to an immigration reform bill in the Senate that would afford gay couples equality in immigration sponsorship.

Steve Ralls, spokesman for Immigration Equality, an organization that has been working on this issue for two decades, said for the first time, the LGBT community is optimistic that immigration policy will become less discriminatory.

"As of today, we are stuck in a race to see who's going to solve the problem first," Ralls said. "If the Senate bill is about to receive its final vote and either we do not have a court ruling or we have a bad court ruling, then (Leahy's) amendment becomes absolutely critical for binational couples."

The amendment, however, doesn't sit well with conservatives and even with more liberal lawmakers who believe it could potentially derail the entire immigration reform bill. The chances of Leahy's amendment passing, say immigration activists, are slim to none.

In any case, if the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, the immigration amendment would be moot.

"I can't sleep thinking about all this," Servetas said from her residence in Rio de Janeiro.

A bill to recognize same-sex partners for immigration purposes was first introduced in Congress in 2000. Since then countless couples have been separated or have had to make the same difficult decision as Servetas and leave home.

In Atlanta, Nepal native Satyam Barakoti, 36, has grown resolute in her efforts to establish a normal life, despite the dark immigration cloud that hangs over her.

She and her partner, Tonja Holder, have been together five years and run a nonprofit consulting agency. They bought a house, and Barakoti is halfway through her first pregnancy. (More than 17,000 children in this country are being raised by binational couples.)

Holder and Barakoti have picked out names: Kabir if it's a boy and Annapurna for a girl.

But come February, Barakoti's temporary work visa, known as an H-1B, will expire, and she could very likely have to leave America. Holder cannot sponsor her for permanent residency or what's more commonly called a green card. Barakoti's child will be born a U.S. citizen, but under current law, children cannot sponsor parents until they are 21.

"We're kind of waiting to see what happens in the Supreme Court. Our options are very murky," Barakoti said.

They could move to Nepal, but it will be difficult there for Holder. She's 47, settled in Atlanta and doesn't speak Nepali. The two have discussed moving elsewhere, maybe to immigration-friendly Canada.

Mercer University law professor Scott Titshaw, who practiced immigration law for 12 years, described "love-exiled" cases as one of the few instances in which he has given this advice: Go north.

"Marriage is just so important to U.S. immigration law," Titshaw said.

Canada is the top destination for same-sex binational couples in the United States because of proximity and its immigration system. Canada uses a point system to determine who will be allowed in to live and work. Applicants are awarded points for proficiency in education, job experience and language skills. If one partner qualifies for immigration status in Canada, he or she can sponsor the other.

Shehan Welihindha, 31, of Sri Lanka and his spouse, Ryan Wilson, 29, live in South Carolina, a state that bans same-sex marriage. They were among the first seven couples to get married in Maryland -- Wilson grew up in Baltimore -- on New Year's Day after that state approved same-sex marriage last fall.

But now, with an expiration date on Welihindha's student visa, they're considering Canada.

Welihindha watched his brother marry an American woman and become a citizen. His younger sister married an American man and within a very short time, she received her green card. But when Welihindha's visa expires, he will either have to find a job with a company that might sponsor him or leave.

"When we think about graduation or starting a family, it takes us back to that root conversation about immigration," said Welihindha from his home in Columbia, South Carolina.

In all, 31 countries recognize same-sex relationships for immigration purposes. Some, like Great Britain, don't have legalized same-sex marriage but still recognize same-sex couples.

That's why Brandon Perlberg, 35, abandoned his law career in New York and moved to London to be with his partner, Benn Storey. Even though the state of New York approved same-sex marriage in 2011, a wedding was not going to help when Storey's temporary work visa ran out.

"You don't get more committed than giving up your country," Perlberg said. "That's the value DOMA was supposed to be protecting. Isn't marriage all about the sanctity of commitment?"

Perlberg is angry -- not at his partner but at his country -- for having to give up everything he cherished and begin again in a foreign land.

Psychology professor Nadine Nakamura is researching people like Perlberg and the emotional toll of having to live in exile for the sake of preserving a relationship.

"The whole situation of not knowing what the future holds and kind of having to wait with bated breath to see what politicians or the Supreme Court decides creates a great deal of anxiety," said Nakamura, who teaches at the University of La Verne in southern California. "A lot of same-sex binational couples have a hard time trying to figure out what their future looks like."

Barakoti said she has lived with that anxiety since she arrived in the United States in 2001, constantly filing paperwork for visa applications including an employer-based green card sponsorship that was rejected. It became so all-consuming that she decided not to fret about it anymore. She and Holder are bracing for a high court decision that will not be in their favor.

"Whatever they throw at us, we'll manage," Holder said.

They know one thing: No matter what, they will find a way to be together. But no one, they said, should have to choose between love and country.

Follow Moni Basu on Twitter

™ & © 2013 Cable News Network, Inc., a Time Warner Company. All rights reserved.

 

Oregon Lottery

PHOTO GALLERY

Calendar

About Us

Breaking News

The Skanner TV

Turn the pages

Hood to Coast