MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

State Department Demands Spouses of Gay Diplomats, U.N. Staff Get Legally Married to Visit—Even if They Can't

An absurdly petty intersection of anti-gay and anti-foreigner policies.

Gay United Nations flagMicha Klootwijk / Dreamstime.comThe State Department has implemented a new policy requiring gay foreign diplomats and United Nations staffers to be legally married in order to get visas for their spouses. This is sparking a bit of anger, because some of them simply can't do that.

After legal recognition of gay marriages became the law of the land, states, companies, and institutions began winding down programs providing benefits for the "domestic partnership" systems they had set up as an alternative. Gay couples would now need to tie the knot if they wanted to be treated the same as straight couples.

That is, on the surface, what appears to be happening with the State Department. In a letter sent in July, which attracted more widespread notice after former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power tweeted about it last Friday, the State Department announced that it is ending a nine-year-old program allowing nonimmigrant travel visas for same-sex domestic partners to join their loved ones in the United States. Starting yesterday, if these partners want come to the U.S., they have to be legally married in order to qualify for the visas.

But gay marriage is still not legally recognized in most countries. Just 28 countries legally recognize gay marriages, either across the whole nation or in certain jurisdictions within them. And letter makes it clear that a marriage must be legally recognized in the couple's home country to count. They can't come to America, tie the knot here, and then get visas.

There is an exception, and it's a bit strange. If a country doesn't recognize gay marriages, but nevertheless treats same-sex couples from the United States the same as married heterosexual couples, the State Department will issue a visa:

As a matter of principle and reciprocity, in countries where same-sex marriage is not legally available and the sending State is unable to accept the accreditation of the same-sex spouses of members of the U.S. diplomatic and consular posts abroad, the same-sex domestic partner would not be eligible for the derivative A-1 or A-2 visa and will not be accepted for accreditation as a member of the family forming part of the household, eligible for the same privileges and immunities as a spouse while the principal serves in the United States.

Partners have until the end of the year to get married or go home.

When the Washington Blade (a gay publication in D.C.) took note of the letter in August, a State Department official told it that the change is about "promoting fairness." The people affected don't see it that way. Alfonso Nam—the president of UN-GLOBE, an advocacy group for gay and transgender U.N. employees—told the Blade this policy of "fairness" will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for the partners of some gay diplomats and U.N. staffers to remain in the United States.

"With this decision, the U.S. State Department is imposing the standard of marriage over all other forms of legal unions," Nam told the Blade. "This will have a negative impact on same-sex couples working for the U.N. who already face limited choices when it comes to being able to get married."

Foreign Policy reports that the change will affect at least 10 United Nations employees. Such a small number highlights how weirdly cruel and unnecessary the policy change is. There is not some big flood of foreigners in fake gay relationships using their jobs with the United Nations to sneak their way into the country. And if the intent is to try to encourage other countries to recognize marriage too, there certainly aren't enough people being affected to be influential in any way.

Instead it comes off as a pointless, petty change designed to hurt a handful of gay families from other countries. It's another piece of evidence that President Donald Trump's administration isn't just waging some war on illegal immigration; it is hostile even to legal immigration—and even, in this case, to long-term foreign visitors.

Photo Credit: Micha Klootwijk / Dreamstime.com

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    If you a straight couple is not legally married, they can't get a spousal visa either. The fact that gays can't get legally married is something they need to take up with the coutnries in which they live. I don't see why they should get special treatment over straight couples or why everyone should just be able to bring one friend of their choice, which is the only alternative to this.

  • Some Jerk||

    LIBERTARIANISM 4EVA

    FREE MINDS, FREE MARKETS

  • rocks||

    If you are not married you are not a spouse.

    Trump is enforcing equality under the law here.

  • Fancylad||

    Apparently recognizing gay marriage and demanding equality of outcome is a bad thing if it's done by Trump.

    I'm having a hell of a time understanding the nuances of progressive rhetoric.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Well, first you have to understand that there is no nuance.

    Its all based on propaganda, racism, and hate.

  • ||

    John, if Scott doesn't like the US's policies, he could always go someplace else.

  • John||

    What is the alternative to this other than giving gays special treatment? Also, how are they really married if they don't have government recognition?

  • ||

    Oh, I'm with you. This isn't just fucked up from a 'gayz iz speshull!' sense but the one-world implications are pretty fucked up as well. Diversity is awesome until brown people in Zimbabwe don't like it, then fuck 'em.

  • Kivlor||

    We could just revoke the whole "you can bring your spouse with you" / chain migration / family reunification nonsense. That would treat everyone equally, and reduce government involvement.

  • ||

    This isn't about chain migration. It's about diplomats.

  • Kivlor||

    Meh, my point stands. Don't let them bring their wives. Too bad, so sad. Problem solved. And teh gayz can't claim unfair treatment.

  • ||

    I suppose one could look at it that way, but we often think of being nice to diplomats as being part of the whole point of having diplomats.

  • retiredfire||

    Missing from this is the special treatment diplomats get from the law - including a free pass at customs.
    Just allowing someone designated as a "spouse", without some form of proof of a "marital" relationship, could allow unscrupulous diplomats to skirt many importation restrictions.

  • Cathy L||

    Y'all are amazing

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Exactly John.

  • Some Jerk||

    Spoiler Alert: John sees nothing wrong with this

  • John||

    Why should gays get treated better than straights? Or in the alternative, why should we get rid of the spousal visa and just make it "everyone gets to take a close friend with them" because gays can't get married in every country.

    Beyond that, I thought the whole reason why we had to have government gay marriage is because you can't be married unless the government gives you a piece of paper saying you are. Yet, Shackford wants the government to treat these couples as "married" without such a paper. Gee, maybe marriage is a civic institution that the government recognizes instead of creates? If that is the case, then this whole thing wasn't really about marriage at all but instead the ability to use the government to force people to recognize your marriage. Wow.

  • Tony||

    If gays are treated so special why not just start sucking dick and live the good life?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    How does seamen taste?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    This is so awesome!

    Trump is trolling these Lefty bureaucrats and using their own repressive national policies to fuck with them

    "n" th D Chess....again.

  • XM||

    Trump is denying visas to anyone not married, which happens to include gay couples.

    Guess why the media decided to be selective?

  • Tony||

    Just normal hysterical anti-immigration stuff that happens to disproportionately harm gay people (because they often can't get married), not specifically antigay stuff. Winning!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    We arent tired of winning yet either.

  • Aloysious||

    You don't really want thoughtful comments, Shackléfart.

    If you did, you would have included thoughts on transgender bathrooms and wedding cakes for Hindu, Hispanic, French speaking communist gay black wimmin.

  • gphx||

    'We demand to be treated equally!
    Oh, Wait!

    WAAAAAAAAH!'

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • Idle Hands||

    We have to wait for the Trump admin to comment on it before we see a position from Reason.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    Mandating hiring and employment policies with force of government is always good law, amirite

  • Rossami||

    Because it's old news.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    That was the bill proposal. Now it's the law of the land. That's new news.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Has anything changed since the article they ran a month ago?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Yes.

    From your link: The bill has passed both houses of the state legislature. Now it just needs Jerry Brown's signature.

    They got the signature. It's now law of the land.

  • ||

    I would bet that in purely pragmatic terms, we all already agree on how stupid that bill is, and Reason isn't going to get many clicks covering it. What are all the comments going to be except "yup - that's dumb." I suspect that they lean towards the issues that get the different factions fighting, because they get more views that way.

  • buybuydandavis||

    #ClownState

    I keep looking, but it seems that all *female* boards are just fine and dandy.

    I can't wait for a board with "transwoman".

    And why just women? What about the 115327 other genders?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Don't forget:
    End the Prison Gap!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Token women.

    I shall call them mini-tokens.

    Black folks are still the main 'tokens' to Lefties.

  • Cathy L||

    After legal recognition of gay marriages became the law of the land, states, companies, and institutions began winding down programs providing benefits for the "domestic partnership" systems they had set up as an alternative. Gay couples would now need to tie the knot if they wanted to be treated the same as straight couples.

    Not just gay couples, but also straight couples who did not care to involve the state in their relationships.

    This State Department policy change sucks, but they should allow anyone, not just gay diplomats, to bring a domestic partner rather than just a spouse. And that goes for the whole immigration system. But of course I can't really expect a state to stop favoring relationships that are expressly designed and managed by the state for that purpose.

  • John||

    That would be the only way to solve this. But it wouldn't be a "domestic partner". It would be whomever they wanted. If it doens't have to be a spouse, why can't it be anyone? How do you even tell who is a domestic partner and who is just a roommate? Do you have to show them a sex tape or something?

  • Cathy L||

    How do you even tell who is a domestic partner and who is just a roommate? Do you have to show them a sex tape or something?

    You say this like a ton of companies haven't already developed a way of dealing with this. Do you think people submitted sex tapes to get their partners' health insurance? No.

  • John||

    The companies didn't deal with this problem. They just took their employees word and called it day. That is just the "everyone gets to have a designated friend" rule.

  • Cathy L||

    And is there any evidence that this was widely taken advantage of?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Who cares if its widely taken advantage of.

    Either have laws and rules on the books and enforce them with everyone or take them off the books entirely.

  • ||

    That is just the "everyone gets to have a designated friend" rule.

    Lots and lots of privileges and immunities are granted to foreign diplomats. Why is this one particular one such tyranny?
  • ||

    You say this like a ton of companies haven't already developed a way of dealing with this.

    They didn't. They offloaded it onto people like Kim Davis and when she refused to do it, against the popular vote, they got rid of her.

  • Cathy L||

    Lol. Yes, they did do it. Plenty of people had domestic partner benefits at work before gay marriages were legally recognized.

  • ||

    Plenty of people had domestic partner benefits at work before gay marriages were legally recognized.

    So then, for them, the push was largely to get the government to sanctify their relationship.

  • Cathy L||

    Not if they were straight. My comment is about straight people also enjoying domestic partnership benefits from private organizations.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Do you think people submitted sex tapes to get their partners' health insurance? No.

    That's kind of a complicated question. Most companies that offer domestic partner rules exist in states where there are domestic partner laws on the books, gay marriage aside. Therefore your domestic partnership must be registered with the state-- therefore subject to those rules and restrictions.

    For the few companies that do offer DP (double penetration) recognition for insurance, they usually have their own process for 'confirming' you're not just registering your best friend Ned for insurance benefits.

    However, there is this interesting development: Companies are DROPPING their domestic partnership rules because Gay Marriage is now recognized, therefore, gay or straight, companies are increasingly telling couples they need to tie the knot to get benefits. Unintended consequences? Irony? You decide.

  • Cathy L||

    However, there is this interesting development: Companies are DROPPING their domestic partnership rules because Gay Marriage is now recognized, therefore, gay or straight, companies are increasingly telling couples they need to tie the knot to get benefits. Unintended consequences? Irony? You decide.

    This is literally what my comment was about.

  • retiredfire||

    " Do you think people submitted sex tapes to get their partners' health insurance? No."
    That's how it worked in SF, where this crap started, so that patients, already infected with AIDS, could get insurance through a city employee, and drove the cost of insurance through the roof.
    Big plans, like the ones offered by large cities, allowed pre-existing conditions for "spouses".

  • John||

    If you don't want the government involved in your relationship, mayb you shoudn't ask that government for special treatment of your partner? The moment you ask the government "please let my fuck buddy into the country because I am coming" you have involved the government in your relationship.

  • Cathy L||

    If you don't want the government involved in your relationship, mayb you shoudn't ask that government for special treatment of your partner?

    Who's asking for that? I thought I was talking about asking my employer to pay for my partner's health insurance without a special state certificate.

  • John||

    The only reason your partner can get into the country is because you are getting in and they are associated with you. You don't get to take your cousin with you or your mailman or anyone else. You are asking the government for special treatment of yoru partner because they are such.

  • Cathy L||

    That's not the case if my partner and I are both Americans and I just want health insurance for both of us without getting the state involved. There are multiple issues involved in what I was responding to.

  • John||

    You could always buy health insurance as a group. You are talking about your employee paying for your partner's insurance. And that is special treatment. They are only paying for it because the person is your partner.

  • Cathy L||

    It's not special treatment from the government.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    This is special treatment from the government, which is why Trump was able to put an end to non-married ambassadors bringing fuck friends.

  • ||

    Ambassadors get special treatment from the government. It's part of what they are.

  • Juice||

    You are talking about your employee paying for your partner's insurance. And that is special treatment.

    Only people whose relationship is licensed by the state should get the special treatment?

  • Don't look at me!||

    What if you are together but don't want to get married? What is so special about being married? Why do they ( or anyone else) care?

  • John||

    If you are not married, why should the person get into the country because of your presence?

  • Juice||

    Why should they if their legally married?

  • Juice||

    *they're, goddammit

  • operagost||

    I hate to make this a tautology, but because they're legally married. That's a thing that matters a lot.

  • Juice||

    Thanks, operagost. That certainly cleared things up, but there's no reason why the spouse can't sit their ass in their home country while the actual diplomat is on duty in the host country. There is no good reason why they should receive special treatment.

  • majil||

    What !?!?! You mean other Countries hate Faggots and Lesbos ?!?!?
    No way ! Only America does as that as we the worst place in the world ! Just ask all the Faggots and Lesbos !

  • mysmartstuffs||

    Didn't expect to see this stupidity at reason.com.

    Yes, it's true, governments which extend privileges to people who are married want people to be governmentally married in the way that governments marry people. What a crazy ********anti-gay******** shocker of a story. Alternately, it's a day that ends in 'y' and not remarkable in any way.

  • John||

    Scott spent years explaining to everyone how marriages were not real if they didn't come with government approval. Thus, gays were unable to get "married in the US". Now he is telling us these couples really are married, even though their governments don't say so, and the US government should treat them like they are.

    If it is the case that people can be married independent of what their local government thinks of it, and I think it most definitely is, and Scott has suddenly discovered this fact, he needs to perpahs rethink some of the things he said about gays not being able to be married without government sanction over the years.

  • ||

    Scott spent years explaining to everyone how marriages were not real if they didn't come with government approval.

    Not at all what Scott has ever said. Government confers special privileges on married couples. But only some. That's the issue. Those benefits should either be abolished, or conferred on everyone without prejudice.

  • ||

    That's the issue.

    Fuck. Off.

    Scott said one thing and did another. I get why he did that. But he was called on it every inch of the way, and to suggest that he didn't stop far short of the goal line of 'special privileges conferred on everyone equally' with everyone pointing out that he wasn't aiming for that is utter horseshit. That's the issue. I don't believe you or Scott because of a proven track history of aiming high and firing low.

  • ||

    But he was called on it every inch of the way

    He was accused of all kind of things every inch of the way, yes. Can you link to something that shows this naked hypocrisy of which you speak?

  • John||

    Those benefits should either be abolished, or conferred on everyone without prejudice.

    So I guess everyone should get welfare then too. And any time the government wants to expand welfare to a new class of people, libertarians should be for it, since as you say, it should go to everyone or no one.

  • ||

    So I guess everyone should get welfare then too.

    Except that the point of welfare is to provide aid for people who are too poor to care for themselves. Without means-testing it's just "cut a check to everybody," which isn't welfare.

    Marriage is a voluntary agreement between two consenting adults.

    So this is more like saying "anyone can incorporated a business. Except Catholics."

  • Juice||

    Marriage is a voluntary agreement between two consenting adults.

    Only two?

  • ||

    Fair enough - two or more.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Adults?

    I thought sheep could be the husbands of Tony in California.

  • John||

    Why should welfare be limited to people who are poor? You just said everyone should be treated equally. Why should non poor people not get treated the same?

  • ||

    Why should non poor people not get treated the same?

    Same reason we don't administer health care to people who aren't sick.

    What is the special status that requires us to confer marriage benefits on some people, but not others?

  • perlchpr||

    The other alternative would be to let them get married here. I mean, NY clearly has gay marriage, so, let 'em tie the knot in America. If they're willing to have a ceremony and sign a piece of paper, why not give it to 'em. As the article mentions, we're talking like 10 people here.

  • Cathy L||

    You're right that rampant statism is not remarkable in any way.

    Libertarians should definitely not report on it.

  • John||

    How is this rampant statism? Also, isn't demanding the government to recognize your relationship pretty statist?

  • Cathy L||

    I'm not demanding the government to recognize my relationship; I'm complaining that governments differentiate among relationships. Or that they do anything at all.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump is cutting statism.

    The USA is literally letting in less bureaucrat special 'friends'.

    NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES.

  • Ordinary Person||

    You're depriving people of the opportunity to spend money in America. It's dumb.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Americans get to decide who comes to the USA. We decided through Trump being elected.

    He's doing a great job.

  • retiredfire||

    This isn't about tourists.
    It's about diplomats, who are a net drain on the local economy.
    Look up how much in parking and other municipal fines diplomats are excused from, especially near missions, like the UN.

  • Rossami||

    Oh, dear. A change that "will affect at least 10 United Nations employees." I wasted more of my time just reading this short story than the entire issue is worth. No, this is not a deliberate attack on either the UN or gays. This is a rational attempt to simplify regulations down to a single, manageable standard.

  • John||

    Ten gay UN employees can't being their spouses. It is like another holocaust or something.

  • ||

    You'd think they were denied wedding cakes or something.

  • Cathy L||

    So 10 people were both totally unimportant but also unmanageable.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Americans dont want to be taken advantage of anymore.

    Trump was elected partly for that reason.

  • ||

    This is a rational attempt to simplify regulations down to a single, manageable standard.

    Because they can't deal with ten whole people?

  • ||

    Because they can't deal with ten whole people?

    Because it's our decision?

  • ||

    Because it's our decision?

    Who's this "we?"

    But that's really a different argument from "we had to simplify this process because ten couples are really overwhelming our system for dealing with this."

  • ||

    Who's this "we?"

    Whomever issues and rescinds policy at the state department. They issued the policy and your/our decision means precisely dick.

    But that's really a different argument from "we had to simplify this process because ten couples are really overwhelming our system for dealing with this."

    Really? Because one group of 'we' said this whole gay marriage thing wasn't going to be a cake walk 10-20 yrs. ago. Some might say that libertarians of previous generations weren't adamant enough about stripping marriage definitions from state, national, and international law books.

  • ||

    They issued the policy and your/our decision means precisely dick.

    Okay. So you can fuck off, too, then. Why even talk about it?

    Really?

    Yes. Did you actually read the comment I was responding to before you went all ape-shit?

    Some might say that libertarians of previous generations weren't adamant enough about stripping marriage definitions from state, national, and international law books.

    Yup. I'm sorry - what does that have to do with the current discussion?

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Some might say that libertarians of previous generations weren't adamant enough about stripping marriage definitions from state, national, and international law books.

    Yup. I'm sorry - what does that have to do with the current discussion?

    Maybe he's suggesting that by reading how all this came to pass you would understand the article is attempting to make an issue out of something; even though it's the end result of the authors historical arguments?

  • ||

    Maybe he's suggesting that by reading how all this came to pass you would understand the article is attempting to make an issue out of something; even though it's the end result of the authors historical arguments?

    How so? I'm not seeing how the US recognizing gay marriage means we now have to stop admitting diplomats' significant others from the country if their home countries don't recognize gay marriage.

    I think a lot of people in this thread didn't actually read the article.

    Someone has been appointed Ambassador to the US from Dumbfuckistan, and wants to bring a little entourage with him. The OP said this change was necessary to "simplify the system" because ten whole diplomats want to bring their gay SO with them. Is this really going to overwhelm the system? Is this really something to get so very worked up over?

  • Longtobefree||

    The article reads like they were taken care of - - - - -

  • Here for the outrage||

    WAIT... so you're telling us that gay people are treated differently in other countries? How so? What countries treat gay people poorly? Maybe unlimited immigration from those places isn't a great idea... Anyone know of any places that, oh, I dunno, throw gay people off rooftops?

    I thought all cultures were created equally... someone help!!!

  • damikesc||

    Not sure why gays deserve benefits that heterosexuals do not get.

    Unmarried straight people didn't get the visas, Don't get why gay unmarrieds should.

    Their country's laws are, literally, zero of our concern.

  • Hugh Akston||

    What if they gave hetero couples the same benefits?

  • ||

    Would harems and concubines be a 'yes' or a 'no'?

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    Some countries have legalized polygamy.

  • Echospinner||

    Why not?

  • damikesc||

    Then we can discuss it.

    But they aren't. They won't.

  • GoatOnABoat||

    This will encourage those countries to allow gay marriage. Sounds like a win for gay rights around the world.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Everyone in the world must get on board with US policy. It's the only progressive way forward. Minimum wage, gay marriage, equal treatment of women, you want to play ball, you culturally appropriate.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Reason wont discuss that because its more important for the World to be Socialist or Anarchist, depending on which Reason staff writer is involved.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Equality before the law.

    You asked for it, you got it.

    Good and hard.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    And once again bigotry towards polygamists is perpetuated. We are a nation of bigots.

  • ||

    ^ This. Marriage is an important sacrament to be absolutely respected. Except when it's not.

  • BYODB||

    Can't disagree with you there. There are so many bizarre configurations of human sexuality it seems insane to still have the government involved. That was always my issue with gay marriage, along with a certain skepticism that gay couples care about what a gay hating god might think of them.

    Marriage, to me, is purely religious. Having state marriages says a lot about what people today worship.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    I read Obergefell as upholding the Edmunds Act because Kennedy emphasizes "couples" multiple times...the freaking EDMUNDS ACT!!!!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Exactly. The homos want to tweek what marriage is without popular support of a constitutional amendment, they get equal treat,ent under the law.

  • Echospinner||

    It does not cost the country anything to issue a temp visa for married or domestic partner couples.

    Simple rule. You are partners if you both say you are and live together.

    Government does not belong in the marriage business to begin with. That has been the libertarian position all along. There is no reason to change that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Gay folks wanted to force gay marriage down everyone's throats instead of getting government out of the marriage business.

    This is what happens. The rules should be applied evenly.

  • Echospinner||

    I am not going to support an immoral policy where government controls marriage and issues licenses just because they do it anyway.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its not immoral to not allow fuck buddies of hetero or homo Ambassadors.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Shorter John:

    I approve of this change because
    1. Fuck the gays
    2. It makes the libs cry
    3. I'm still bitter about Obergefell

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    Obergfell is the reason Trump is president. Hillary would have won running on same sex marriage because it would have motivated Millennials. Kennedy is a Republican and is retiring so his replacement will overturn Roe.

  • Juice||

    his replacement will overturn Roe.

    It's going nowhere. Keep dreaming.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    Abortion is effectively illegal in 4 states along with large swaths of the country. Overturning Roe will change very little but it will take the issue out of the national discussion which will end up benefiting Democrats—Texans want Plan B in rape kits and if Republicans make it illegal they will vote for Democrats.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Shorter Lefties:

    I dislike this change because...
    1. Fuck America
    2. I hate Trump
    3. Some people deserve special privileges
    4. IT WAS HER TURN!!!!

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    This is a really really hard problem.

    It's almost like the government shouldn't have any role whatsoever in relationships, but obviously that could never work.

  • Longtobefree||

    Well, after all, pointless and petty is pretty much a summation of governments.
    What if it only affected 5 current UN employees?
    What if it affected 100 current UN employees?
    How about the UN moves to Brussels and we sell the NY real estate to pay down US debt? Problem solved.

  • swampwiz||

    Why doesn't the country simply make the partner a member of the diplomatic corps?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tyrannies dont want to pay royalty bureaucrat wages to fuck buddies.

  • BYODB||

    This seems designed to result in legalization overseas, not sure what the problem is.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    What kind of numbers are we talking here, seriously?
    How long can a visitor stay on a tourist visa, or a looking for work visa? Assuming these are not denied, just no permanent visas granted automatically.
    What does the policy look like on the other side of the pond?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Reason staff are too dumb to realize this is Trump setting up homo foreigners to get involved in their own sex trafficking trade while doing nothing in NY or get slaughtered for pushing for homo rights in their socialist authoritarian regimes back home.

    Fucking genius!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online