National
Bi-national couples await relief under Obama policy change
New hope, as immigration enforcement shifts focus
Anton Tanumihardja (left) and Brian Andersen (photo courtesy of Andersen)
Brian Andersen is nervously awaiting a phone call from U.S. immigration officials.
Andersen, an American citizen who married his spouse, Anton Tanumihardja, an Indonesian national, in D.C. in June, hopes that U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement will deem the deportation proceedings against Tanumihardja to be a low priority and take him out of the pipeline for potential separation from the country.
“To be a little cliche, it really would feel like a burden would be lifted from our shoulders,” Andersen said. “Of course I do know in the back of my mind, that certainly isn’t the end of the road, but it would certainly take the immediate threat away of the government tearing my spouse away from me.”
MORE IN THE BLADE: DHS GUIDANCE ON IMMIGRATION OMITS SAME-SEX COUPLES
Such an opportunity is possible for Andersen and Tanumihardja thanks to new guidance that the Obama administration unveiled last week in immigration policy. In a letter to the Senate, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano last week indicated that authorities will conduct a case-by-case review of the approximately 300,000 undocumented immigrants facing possible deportation to determine which cases are high priority and low priority for separation from the country.
Those who have been convicted of crimes or pose a security risk will be a higher priority for deportation, while those who are deemed lower priority will be taken out of the pipeline. Administration officials will weigh a person’s ties and contributions to the community and family relationships. The Obama administration has said these criteria are inclusive of LGBT families and same-sex couples.
Tanumihardja has lived in the United States since 2002 and has sought residency in the United States through the asylum process. After losing his bid for residency through this process, he was served with a final deportation order and was set for separation on Feb. 14. However, immigration officials postponed the deportation temporarily and Tanumihardja must continue to check in with ICE officials. At any time, the deportation office can set a date for his separation from the country.
Andersen, who lives in Philadelphia with his spouse, said a call from ICE removing Tanumihardja from proceedings would provide immediate relief until action is taken to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
“It doesn’t solve the larger issue of the discrimination of the Defense of Marriage Act, and still wouldn’t allow me to sponsor Anton for permanent residence, but it is a step in the right direction and would allow us the peace of mind knowing we can stay and continue to fight together for full marriage equality,” Andersen said.
Under current immigration law, straight Americans can sponsor their spouses for residency in the United States through the green card application process if their spouses are foreign nationals. The same rights aren’t available to gay Americans because the Defense of Marriage Act prohibits federal recognition of same-sex unions, which are only legal in six states and D.C.
Consequently, foreign nationals who are in committed relationships with gay Americans may have to leave the United States or face deportation — which could mean separation from their partner — if these foreign nationals are discovered to be undocumented or upon expiration of their temporary visas. The new policy guidance offers an opportunity for the Obama administration to cancel the deportation of these foreign nationals, enabling them to remain in the country with their partners.
Lavi Soloway, founder of Stop the Deportations and an immigration lawyer who handles deportation cases for same-sex couples, said Napalitano’s guidance demonstrates the Obama administration is offering “a greater degree of sensitivity” to LGBT families.
“Those individuals who are facing deportation, but who are married to a gay or lesbian American citizen have a more receptive Department of Homeland Security to communicate their request for prosecutorial discretion than perhaps a few weeks ago,” Soloway said.
The change builds off an existing June 17 memo from the Department of Homeland Security enabling immigration officials to exercise discretion in deportation cases that aren’t deemed high priority. Soloway said the guidelines now are still the same as when this earlier memo was issued, but the administration has signaled “an aggressive interest in setting aside low priority cases, and that would include cases involving LGBT families.”
But Soloway noted that the Obama administration has offered no timeline for when officials will complete the removal of foreign nationals in same-sex marriage from the deportation pipeline, nor whether this change would mean an end to all DOMA-related deportations.
“We don’t know how long it will take for the government to work through its pipeline of cases, and so any bi-national couples who are at risk of being torn apart through deportation should be advocating for themselves and should be presenting the evidence and making the argument to deportation officers or prosecutors,” Soloway said.
Gillian Christensen, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, responded to the Blade’s request to comment on timing with the following statement.
“ICE is focused on smart, effective immigration enforcement that prioritizes the removal of criminal aliens, recent border crossers and egregious immigration law violators, such as those who have been previously removed from the United States,” Christensen said. “The agency exercises prosecutorial discretion, on a case by case basis, as necessary to focus resources on these priorities.”
One couple that had been in deportation proceedings has already found relief after Napolitano issued the new guidance. Alex Benshimol and Douglas Gentry, a married gay bi-national couple in California, learned on Saturday that ICE dropped proceedings against Benshimol, a Venezuelan native.
In a statement, Gentry said the decision by ICE to exercise prosecutorial discretion and take Benshimol out of the deportation pipeline, effectively taking him out of danger, is “extremely encouraging.”
“This should bring hope to so many couples in our situation,” Gentry said. “As happy as Alex is, he’s still uncertain. We will still have to fight for full equality because DOMA prevents me from petitioning for his green card. But the constant fear of exile or separation is over, and for that we’re very grateful.”
The case marks the second time this year that ICE has dropped deportation proceedings against a same-sex couple. In July, immigration officials discontinued proceedings against Henry Velandia, a gay Venezuelan national, who lives in New Jersey with his spouse, Josh Vandiver.
Sujey Pando (right) and her spouse Violeta (photo courtesy Lavi Soloway)
Another couple that could receive a call from ICE and obtain relief is Sujey and Violeta Pando. The Denver, Colo, couple, who have been together five years and married last year in Iowa, received media attention last week after an immigration judge decided to postpone deportation proceedings against Sujey, a Mexican national, until January.
Violeta told the Blade that a phone call from ICE informing the couple that Sujey would be taken out of the pipeline for deportation would make them “so happy there’d be no words to describe the feeling.”
“I think there’s a possibility because under Secretary Napolitano’s memo, it listed some categories, and Sujey fits all those categories,” Violeta said. “So, I don’t see why not, she has ties to the community, she’s married to me, she’s not a criminal.”
Growing up in Mexico, Sujey was ostracized by her family for being a tom-boy and says she was raped and beaten growing up. At the age of 16, she was brought into the United States. Her deportation troubles started in 2008, when she was arrested after a traffic violation and taken to jail. ICE was notified and deportation proceedings started against her.
The specter of deportation, Violeta said, still concerns the couple and they don’t know what action they’d take if a deportation was ordered against Sujey.
“We try not to look at that as an option,” Violeta said. “I don’t know what I would do. We don’t look at that as an option, we need to fight for this. It all goes back to DOMA. So, no, not an option.”
But the new guidance would only affect gay foreign nationals who are currently facing deportation proceedings. Gay foreign nationals in same-sex relationships who are seeking legal status and protections, but haven’t yet had deportation proceedings started against them, aren’t affected the Obama administration’s change.
One such bi-national same-sex couple is Bradford Wells, a U.S. citizen, and Anthony John Makk, an Australian national. The San Francisco couple were married in Massachusetts seven years ago and have lived together 19 years. Wells and Makk came into public view earlier this month after the San Francisco Chronicle profiled them and reported that U.S. Customs & Immigration Enforcement on July 26 denied Makk a marriage-based green card for residency on the basis of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Makk is the primary caregiver for Wells, who’s living with AIDS. Wells told the Blade he’d be faced with significant challenges in continuing to care for himself should the U.S. government order deportation of his spouse.
“If he was deported, I’d be here all alone, I wouldn’t have anyone to assist me,” Wells said. “I would find it impossible to take care of all the things I would need to take care of to manage my day-to-day life. I would not be able to do everything I have to do.”
Steve Ralls, a spokesperson for Immigration Equality, which is handing Wells and Makk’s case, said their story underscores the fact that same-sex immigrant families need earlier intervention and a more permanent solution to put them on equal legal footing with opposite-sex couples.
“While the administration’s decision to intervene and halt deportation proceedings is a welcome step in the right direction, our government should not be forcing couples to face a worst-case scenario in order to receive even minimal relief,” Ralls said.
To ensure greater protection, Ralls said the Obama administration should implement a policy of holding spousal applications for married bi-national same-sex couples until either the courts or Congress lift DOMA from the books.
“That allows more families to maintain legal status, and legal protections, which is a far better option than waiting until deportation orders are issued and families have been forced out of status,” Ralls said. “The administration has offered to loosen the noose in a last-minute reprieve for some families. Instead, they should be stepping up, and offering help, before families are faced with such dire circumstances.”
Immigration Equality on Wednesday appealed the denial of the marriage-based green card to U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services. The appeal gives him no legal status while pending, but if granted, would then place him back in legal status. Ralls said an attempt to remove him while the appeal is pending would be unusual because a successful appeal would permit him to remain in the United States legally.
Even though the policy change wouldn’t directly impact the San Francisco couple, Wells said he thinks the more rigorous attention that bi-national same-sex couples would receive under the case-by-case examination of deportation proceedings makes him feel “there could be hope at the very end of the road.”
“There is a possibility that if we find ourselves at the very end of the road that he may get deferred action and they won’t actually put him on a plane and fly him back to Australia, but we’re not there yet and I’m trying to get some relief before we get there,” Wells said.
NOTE: This article has been updated.
Federal Government
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
Bill described as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’
Members of Congress, advocates, and people from across the country gathered outside the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday to protest proposed federal legislation that voting rights activists have deemed “Jim Crow 2.0.”
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require in-person proof of citizenship for anyone seeking to vote in U.S. elections.
President Donald Trump has also pushed for the proposed legislation to include a section that would ban gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, even with parental consent, and prohibit trans people from participating in school or professional sports consistent with their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth.
In addition to changing voter registration requirements, the bill would limit acceptable forms of identification to documents such as a birth certificate or passport — records that the Brennan Center for Justice estimates more than 21 million Americans do not have — effectively restricting access to the ballot. It would also ban online voter registration, DMV voter registration efforts, and mail-in voter registration.
A 2021 investigation by the Associated Press found that fewer than 475 people voted illegally or improperly, a tiny fraction of the estimated 160 million Americans who voted in the 2020 election.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) spoke at the event.
“It will kick millions of American citizens off the rolls. And they don’t even require you to be told,” the highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate told protesters and reporters outside the Capitol. “If this law passes — and it won’t — you’re gonna show up in November … and they’ll say… sorry, you’re no longer on the voting rolls.”
He, like many other speakers, emphasized the bill in the context of American history, pointing to what he described as its racist roots and its impact on Black and brown Americans.
“I have called this act, over and over again, Jim Crow 2.0 … because they know it’s the truth.”
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was one of the lawmakers leading opposition to the legislation and spoke at the rally.
“It’s not just voting rights that are on the line — our democracy is on the line,” the California lawmaker said. “It’s not a voter I.D. bill. It’s a bait and switch bill.”
He added historical context, noting the significance of voting rights legislation passed more than 60 years ago. In 1965, Alabama civil rights activists marched to protest barriers to voter registration. Alabama state troopers violently attacked peaceful demonstrators at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, using tear gas, clubs, and whips against more than 500 — mostly Black — protesters.
“61 years ago — not to the day — but this week, President Lyndon Johnson came to the Capitol and addressed a joint session of Congress in the wake of Bloody Sunday and pushed Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act,” Padilla said. “61 years later, Donald Trump and this Republican majority wants to take us backwards. We’re not gonna let that happen.”
U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) also spoke, emphasizing that he views the effort as a Republican-led and Trump-backed attempt to restrict voting access, particularly among Black, brown, and predominantly Democratic communities.
“President Trump told Republicans when they were meeting behind closed doors that ‘The SAVE Act will guarantee Republicans win the midterms and ensure they do not lose an election for 50 years,’” Luján said. “The first time I think Donald Trump’s been honest … This voter suppression bill is only that. Taking away vote by mail? I hope my Republican colleagues from states that voted for Donald Trump or where vote by mail is popular have the courage and the backbone to stand up and say no to this nonsense, because their constituents are going to push back.”
U.S. Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) also spoke.
“Our Republican colleagues have already cut Medicaid, Medicare, people don’t know how they’re gonna be able to afford energy,” she said, providing context for the broader political moment. “We’re in the middle of a war that they can’t even get straight while we’re in it and don’t have a way to get out of it. And we are now faced with defending our democracy?”
She then showed the crowd something that she said has been with her throughout her political journey in Washington.
“I brought with me something that I carried on the day that I was sworn into the House of Representatives when I was elected in 2016, and I carried it with me on the day that I was sworn in as United States senator. And I also carried it with me when I was trapped up in the gallery on Jan. 6 and all I could think to do was pray … This document allowed my great great great grandfather, who had been enslaved in Georgia, to have the right to vote. We took this and turned it into a scarf. It is the returns of qualified voters and reconstruction code from 1867. This is my proof of what we’ve been through. This is also our inspiration.”
“I got to travel between the Edmund Pettus Bridge two times. And even as I thought about this moment, I recognized that while we wish we weren’t in it, while we don’t know why we’re in it, I do know we were made for it … So I came today to tell you that, um, just like the leader said, that he calls it Jim Crow 2.0. I call it Jim Crow 2.NO.”
Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy organization in the U.S., also spoke, highlighting the impact of the bill’s proposed provisions affecting trans people.
“This bill is not about saving America. This bill is about stealing an election. This bill is about suppressing voters,” Robinson said. “This bill not only tries to disenfranchise voters that deserve their right to vote, it also tries to criminalize trans kids and their families … It tries to criminalize doctors providing medically necessary care for our trans youth.”
The SAVE Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 11 but has not yet been considered in the U.S. Senate.
Idaho
Idaho advances bill to restrict bathroom access for transgender residents
HB 752 passed in state House of Representatives on Monday
The Idaho House of Representatives passed House Bill 752 on Monday, a measure that would make it a crime for a person to use a bathroom other than the one designated for their “biological sex.”
The story was first reported by the Idaho Capitol Sun after the bill cleared the House.
House Bill 752 would make it a criminal offense — either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the number of prior offenses — for individuals who “knowingly and willfully” enter a bathroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex.
The bill would apply to public buildings, including government-owned spaces, and places of “public accommodation,” a category that includes private businesses.
According to the bill’s text, it would “prohibit a person from entering a restroom or changing room designated for the opposite sex; provide a penalty; provide exceptions; define terms; and declare an emergency and provide an effective date.”
A first offense would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison. A second or subsequent offense within five years would be a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison.
The bill passed in a 54–15 vote on Monday. Six Republicans broke with their party’s majority to join nine Democrats in opposing the measure.
The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Cornel Rasor, a Republican from Sagle near the Washington-Idaho border, told House lawmakers that the legislation is intended to protect women and girls.
“It prevents discomfort and voyeurism escalation and assaults, while preserving single-user options and narrow exceptions so no one is denied access for emergency aid,” Rasor said.
State Rep. Chris Mathias, a Democrat from Boise, disagreed, arguing that the legislation would unfairly target transgender Idahoans.
“The truth of the matter is — and I know a lot of people don’t want to say it — but forcing people who don’t look like the sex they were assigned at birth, or transgender folks, to use other people’s bathrooms is going to put a lot of people in danger,” Mathias said.
The Idaho American Civil Liberties Union made a statement about the bill following its passage.
“Idaho lawmakers continue pushing these harmful, invasive bathroom laws, yet cannot present credible evidence that transgender people using gender-aligned bathrooms threaten public safety,” the Idaho ACLU said. “The bill does nothing to address real criminal acts, such as sexual assault or voyeurism, and disregards concerns from law enforcement about the burden enforcement would place on local resources.”
In addition to human rights advocates, who have spoken out against similar bills advancing in state legislatures across the country, Idaho law enforcement groups have also opposed the measure. They argue that the way the legislation is written would “pose significant practical enforcement challenges,” noting that officers are tasked with maintaining public safety — not conducting gender checks or policing bathroom access.
During a committee hearing last week, law enforcement representatives and several trans Idahoans testified that the bill would make many residents less safe.
“Officers responding to a complaint would be placed in the difficult position of determining an individual’s biological sex in order to enforce the statute,” Idaho Fraternal Order of Police President Bryan Lovell wrote. “In many circumstances, there is no clear or reasonable way for officers to make that determination without engaging in questioning or investigative actions that could be viewed as invasive and inappropriate.”
The Idaho Sheriffs’ Association requested that lawmakers amend the bill to require that individuals be given an opportunity to leave a bathroom immediately before facing potential prosecution.
The bill now heads to the Idaho Senate for consideration. To become law, it must pass both chambers and avoid a veto from the governor.
A separate bathroom bill, House Bill 607, which would be enforced through civil lawsuits, passed the House last month but has not yet received a committee hearing in the Senate.
State Department
Report: US to withhold HIV aid to Zambia unless mineral access expanded
New York Times obtained Secretary of State Marco Rubio memo
The State Department is reportedly considering withholding assistance for Zambians with HIV unless the country’s government allows the U.S. to access more of its minerals.
The New York Times on Monday reported Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a memo to State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs staffers wrote the U.S. “will only secure our priorities by demonstrating willingness to publicly take support away from Zambia on a massive scale.” The newspaper said it obtained a copy of the letter.
Zambia is a country in southern Africa that borders Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The Times notes upwards of 1.3 million Zambians receive daily HIV medications through PEPFAR. The newspaper reported Rubio in his memo said the Trump-Vance administration could “significantly cut assistance” as soon as May.
“Reports of (the) State Department withholding lifesaving HIV treatment in return for mining concessions in Zambia does not make us safer, stronger, or more prosperous,” said U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Tuesday. “Monetizing innocent people’s lives further undermines U.S. global leadership and is just plain wrong.”
The Washington Blade has reached out to the State Department for comment.
Zambia received breakthrough HIV prevention drug through PEPFAR
Rubio on Jan. 28, 2025, issued a waiver that allowed PEPFAR and other “life-saving humanitarian assistance” programs to continue to operate during a freeze on nearly all U.S. foreign aid spending. HIV/AIDS service providers around the world with whom the Blade has spoken say PEPFAR cuts and the loss of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which officially closed on July 1, 2025, has severely impacted their work.
The State Department last September announced PEPFAR will distribute lenacapavir in countries with high prevalence rates. Zambia two months later received the first doses of the breakthrough HIV prevention drug.
Kenya and Uganda are among the African countries have signed health agreements with the U.S. since the Trump-Vance administration took office.
The Times notes the countries that signed these agreements pledged to increase health spending. The Blade last month reported LGBTQ rights groups have questioned whether these agreements will lead to further exclusion and government-sanctioned discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Housewives take Capitol Hill by storm
Protesters say SAVE Act targets voters, transgender youth
‘It’s Dorothy’ traces lasting influence of a cultural icon
SAVE Act could silence millions of trans voters
The frightening rise of antisemitism, Islamophobia
Ensuring safer drinking water
A season of renewal for D.C. theater
PHOTOS: Awesome Con
Kennedy Center leadership changes as Trump ally Grenell departs
