Connect with us

National

Gay couples discussed in Senate immigration hearing

Napolitano says no greater risk of fraud upon UAFA passage

Published

on

United States Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, gay news, Washington Blade
United States Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, gay news, Washington Blade

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano said UAFA would not present a greater risk of fraud. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano said on Wednesday that protections for bi-national same-sex couples would result in no greater risk of fraud under U.S. immigration code.

During a hearing on comprehensive immigration reform before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Napolitano made the case for comprehensive immigration reform and answered questions about legislation that would enable gay Americans to sponsor a same-sex foreign partner for residency in the United States.

These couples face separation — and possibly deportation of the foreign national in the relationship — under current law. President Obama has called for a provision addressing this issue as part of his plan for comprehensive immigration reform.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) asked whether the Uniting American Families Act — legislation addressing the issue that he introduced on the same day in the Senate — would present a risk of people abusing the system to gain entry to the country.

In response, Napolitano denied any problems with respect to fraud would present themselves upon passage of Leahy’s legislation.

“Our adjudicators are experienced at fraud, fraud detection,” Napolitano said. “We’ve actually increased the number of examiners who focus on this. This is done primarily at [U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services]. But, no, we don’t see that as a barrier to achieving equality.”

In his opening statement before the hearing, Leahy — saying he wants the committee to complete work on immigration reform legislation “over the next few months” — announced he had introduced the legislation with bipartisan support along with Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who became the first Republican to co-sponsor the legislation in September.

“This legislation will end the needless discrimination so many Americans face in our immigration system,” Leahy said. “Too many citizens, including Vermonters who I have come to know personally and who want nothing more than to be with their loved ones, are denied this basic human right. This policy serves no legitimate purpose and it is wrong.”

UAFA imposes the same restrictions and penalties applied to straight Americans seeking to sponsor a spouse for residency via a marriage-based green card application under the Immigration & Naturalization Act. The penalties for fraud include a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, said in response to a query over whether Obama has decided to endorse UAFA that the legislation is in line with Obama’s plan for immigration reform, which includes a provision for bi-national same-sex couples.

“The president has long believed that Americans with same-sex partners from other countries should not be faced with the painful choice between staying with the person they love or staying in the country they love,” Inouye said. “There is already legislation that has been introduced in Congress that would address that, and the president’s proposal tracks that legislation.”

The 12-page testimony that Napolitano submitted to the committee reiterates Obama’s support for bi-national same-sex couples as part of reform, saying his plan “treats the families of same-sex partners the same as other families by giving foreign born same-sex partners of Americans access to the family based immigration system.”

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) — lamenting that the issue is often seen as a “divisive issue or side issue that doesn’t deserve focus”  — followed up later with questions about whether the Obama administration could commit to ceasing the deportation of foreign-nationals in same-sex relationships under current law if nothing is done. Napolitano denied she was able to take such action under the Defense of Marriage Act.

“I cannot give a categorical answer there because of DOMA, and we are charged with enforcing DOMA as well,” Napolitano replied.

LGBT advocates — including Immigration Equality — have been pushing the Obama administration to place on hold the marriage-based green card applications of bi-national same-sex couples until DOMA is stricken from the books. Upon each request, the administration has said it must uphold DOMA.

Under Napolitano, the administration has already taken steps to assist bi-national couples. In October, the Department of Homeland Security issued guidance stipulating immigration officers should consider “long-term, same-sex partners” as families when considering whether to exercise prosecutorial discretion in the potential deportation of an undocumented immigrant.

Also presenting testimony during a second panel at the hearing was Jose Antonio Vargas, a gay Filipino undocumented immigrant and award-winning journalist.

While his testimony reflected more on the importance of incorporating language as part of reform along the lines of the DREAM Act to allow young, undocumented immigrants like himself a path to citizenship, Vargas talked about being both gay and an undocumented immigrant as reasons why he’s faced challenges in the country.

Under questioning from Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Vargas said he’s spoken with bi-national same-sex couples and realized the destructiveness of current immigration law.

“It’s been really interesting when you see same-sex couples say I can’t marry and petition of 5, 10, 12 years because we have DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act,” Vargas said. “The federal government doesn’t acknowledge same-sex marriage even if it happens in New York, for example, or Massachusetts. You really see how broken it is from the perspective of individual lives and their connections to their own communities, and that’s why it was important for me not just to bring my Filipino-American family, but to bring the family that I found at my high school.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Federal Government

Lambda Legal praises Biden-Harris administration’s finalized Title IX regulations

New rules to take effect Aug. 1

Published

on

U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona (Screen capture: AP/YouTube)

The Biden-Harris administration’s revised Title IX policy “protects LGBTQ+ students from discrimination and other abuse,” Lambda Legal said in a statement praising the U.S. Department of Education’s issuance of the final rule on Friday.

Slated to take effect on Aug. 1, the new regulations constitute an expansion of the 1972 Title IX civil rights law, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education programs that receive federal funding.

Pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the landmark 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County case, the department’s revised policy clarifies that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity constitutes sex-based discrimination as defined under the law.

“These regulations make it crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights,” Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said during a call with reporters on Thursday.

While the new rule does not provide guidance on whether schools must allow transgender students to play on sports teams corresponding with their gender identity to comply with Title IX, the question is addressed in a separate rule proposed by the agency in April.

The administration’s new policy also reverses some Trump-era Title IX rules governing how schools must respond to reports of sexual harassment and sexual assault, which were widely seen as imbalanced in favor of the accused.

Jennifer Klein, the director of the White House Gender Policy Council, said during Thursday’s call that the department sought to strike a balance with respect to these issues, “reaffirming our longstanding commitment to fundamental fairness.”

“We applaud the Biden administration’s action to rescind the legally unsound, cruel, and dangerous sexual harassment and assault rule of the previous administration,” Lambda Legal Nonbinary and Transgender Rights Project Director Sasha Buchert said in the group’s statement on Friday.

“Today’s rule instead appropriately underscores that Title IX’s civil rights protections clearly cover LGBTQ+ students, as well as survivors and pregnant and parenting students across race and gender identity,” she said. “Schools must be places where students can learn and thrive free of harassment, discrimination, and other abuse.”

Continue Reading

Michigan

Mich. Democrats spar over LGBTQ-inclusive hate crimes law

Lawmakers disagree on just what kind of statute to pass

Published

on

Members of the Michigan House Democrats gather to celebrate Pride month in 2023 in the Capitol building. (Photo courtesy of Michigan House Democrats)

Michigan could soon become the latest state to pass an LGBTQ-inclusive hate crime law, but the state’s Democratic lawmakers disagree on just what kind of law they should pass.

Currently, Michigan’s Ethnic Intimidation Act only offers limited protections to victims of crime motivated by their “race, color, religion, gender, or national origin.” Bills proposed by Democratic lawmakers expand the list to include “actual or perceived race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, ethnicity, physical or mental disability, age, national origin, or association or affiliation with any such individuals.” 

Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel have both advocated for a hate crime law, but house and senate Democrats have each passed different hate crimes packages, and Nessel has blasted both as being too weak.

Under the house proposal that passed last year (House Bill 4474), a first offense would be punishable with a $2,000 fine, up to two years in prison, or both. Penalties double for a second offense, and if a gun or other dangerous weapons is involved, the maximum penalty is six years in prison and a fine of $7,500. 

But that proposal stalled when it reached the senate, after far-right news outlets and Fox News reported misinformation that the bill only protected LGBTQ people and would make misgendering a trans person a crime. State Rep. Noah Arbit, the bill’s sponsor, was also made the subject of a recall effort, which ultimately failed.

Arbit submitted a new version of the bill (House Bill 5288) that added sections clarifying that misgendering a person, “intentionally or unintentionally” is not a hate crime, although the latest version (House Bill 5400) of the bill omits this language.

That bill has since stalled in a house committee, in part because the Democrats lost their house majority last November, when two Democratic representatives resigned after being elected mayors. The Democrats regained their house majority last night by winning two special elections.

Meanwhile, the senate passed a different package of hate crime bills sponsored by state Sen. Sylvia Santana (Senate Bill 600) in March that includes much lighter sentences, as well as a clause ensuring that misgendering a person is not a hate crime. 

Under the senate bill, if the first offense is only a threat, it would be a misdemeanor punishable by one year in prison and up to $1,000 fine. A subsequent offense or first violent hate crime, including stalking, would be a felony that attracts double the punishment.

Multiple calls and emails from the Washington Blade to both Arbit and Santana requesting comment on the bills for this story went unanswered.

The attorney general’s office sent a statement to the Blade supporting stronger hate crime legislation.

“As a career prosecutor, [Nessel] has seen firsthand how the state’s weak Ethnic Intimidation Act (not updated since the late 1980’s) does not allow for meaningful law enforcement and court intervention before threats become violent and deadly, nor does it consider significant bases for bias.  It is our hope that the legislature will pass robust, much-needed updates to this statute,” the statement says.

But Nessel, who has herself been the victim of racially motivated threats, has also blasted all of the bills presented by Democrats as not going far enough.

“Two years is nothing … Why not just give them a parking ticket?” Nessel told Bridge Michigan.

Nessel blames a bizarre alliance far-right and far-left forces that have doomed tougher laws.

“You have this confluence of forces on the far right … this insistence that the First Amendment protects this language, or that the Second Amendment protects the ability to possess firearms under almost any and all circumstances,” Nessel said. “But then you also have the far left that argues basically no one should go to jail or prison for any offense ever.”

The legislature did manage to pass an “institutional desecration” law last year that penalizes hate-motivated vandalism to churches, schools, museums, and community centers, and is LGBTQ-inclusive.

According to data from the U.S. Department of Justice, reported hate crime incidents have been skyrocketing, with attacks motivated by sexual orientation surging by 70 percent from 2020 to 2022, the last year for which data is available. 

Twenty-two states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have passed LGBTQ-inclusive hate crime laws. Another 11 states have hate crime laws that include protections for “sexual orientation” but not “gender identity.”

Michigan Democrats have advanced several key LGBTQ rights priorities since they took unified control of the legislature in 2023. A long-stalled comprehensive anti-discrimination law was passed last year, as did a conversion therapy ban. Last month the legislature updated family law to make surrogacy easier for all couples, including same-sex couples. 

A bill to ban the “gay panic” defense has passed the state house and was due for a Senate committee hearing on Wednesday.

Continue Reading

Indiana

Drag queen announces run for mayor of Ind. city

Branden Blaettne seeking Fort Wayne’s top office

Published

on

Branden Blaettner being interviewed by a local television station during last year’s Pride month. (WANE screenshot)

In a Facebook post Tuesday, a local drag personality announced he was running for the office of mayor once held by the late Fort Wayne Mayor Tom Henry, who died last month just a few months into his fifth term.

Henry was recently diagnosed with late-stage stomach cancer and experienced an emergency that landed him in hospice care. He died shortly after.

WPTA, a local television station, reported that Fort Wayne resident Branden Blaettne, whose drag name is Della Licious, confirmed he filed paperwork to be one of the candidates seeking to finish out the fifth term of the late mayor.

Blaettner, who is a community organizer, told WPTA he doesn’t want to “get Fort Wayne back on track,” but rather keep the momentum started by Henry going while giving a platform to the disenfranchised groups in the community. Blaettner said he doesn’t think his local fame as a drag queen will hold him back.

“It’s easy to have a platform when you wear platform heels,” Blaettner told WPTA. “The status quo has left a lot of people out in the cold — both figuratively and literally,” Blaettner added.

The Indiana Capital Chronicle reported that state Rep. Phil GiaQuinta, who has led the Indiana House Democratic caucus since 2018, has added his name to a growing list of Fort Wayne politicos who want to be the city’s next mayor. A caucus of precinct committee persons will choose the new mayor.

According to the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, the deadline for residents to file candidacy was 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday. A town hall with the candidates is scheduled for 6 p.m. on Thursday at Franklin School Park. The caucus is set for 10:30 a.m. on April 20 at the Lincoln Financial Event Center at Parkview Field.

At least six candidates so far have announced they will run in the caucus. They include Branden Blaettne, GiaQuinta, City Councilwoman Michelle Chambers, City Councilwoman Sharon Tucker, former city- and county-council candidate Palermo Galindo, and 2023 Democratic primary mayoral candidate Jorge Fernandez.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular