National
Obama’s immigration speech omits gays
LGBT advocates praise commitment to keeping families together
President Obama gave a speech on immigration reform Tuesday (Blade photo by Michael Key)
President Obama’s speech on Tuesday calling for a bipartisan approach to immigration reform lacked explicit mention of the plight of bi-national gay couples, but LGBT rights supporters are hoping his inclusion of family unification was a hint of his support.
In his address at the Chamizal National Memorial Park in El Paso, Texas, Obama emphasized passage of comprehensive immigration reform in Congress would have benefits for both the economic prosperity and border security of the country while making no explicit mention of the plight that many gay families face under current immigration laws.
On the fiscal benefits of immigration reform, Obama said enacting new legislation would enable immigrants who come to the United States to attend college to stay in the country to use their education to advance the economy.
“But our laws discourage them from using those skills to start a business or power a new industry right here in the United States,” Obama said. “So instead of training entrepreneurs to create jobs in America, we train them to create jobs for our competition. That makes no sense. In a global marketplace, we need all the talent we can get — not just to benefit those individuals, but because their contributions will benefit all Americans.”
Obama also said enacting comprehensive immigration reform would contribute to border security by allowing U.S. immigration officials to focus on immigrants who come to the United States for unscrupulous purposes.
“The most significant step we can take now to secure the borders is to fix the system as a whole — so that fewer people have incentive to enter illegally in search of work in the first place,” Obama said. “This would allow agents to focus on the worst threats on both of our borders — from drug traffickers to those who would come here to commit acts of violence or terror.”
But never during the speech did Obama directly address how under current immigration law gay Americans are unable to sponsor their foreign partners for residency in the United States. Foreign nationals in same-sex relationships with Americans could be subject to deportation and separation from their loved ones upon expiration of their temporary visas that allow them to remain in the country.
Even U.S. citizens in legally recognized same-sex marriages with foreign nationals cannot obtain marriage-based I-130 green cards for their spouses because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of the unions.
At one point in his address, Obama said immigration law should “respect families following the rules — reuniting them more quickly instead of splitting them apart.” The remark seemed directed toward immigrants who are permanent residents in the United States seeking to have their loved ones join them, and not aimed at problems faced by gay Americans and their foreign partners.
“While applicants wait for approval, for example, they’re often forbidden from visiting the United States,” Obama said. “Even husbands and wives may have to spend years apart. Parents can’t see their children. I don’t believe the United States of America should be in the business of separating families. That’s not right. That’s not who we are.”
Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, said the president’s speech was intended to emphasize the importance of immigration reform on his agenda and the lack of explicit mention of gay families shouldn’t be seen as an indication of the president’s position on the issue.
“The president delivered this speech because he wants a constructive and civil debate on the need to fix the broken immigration system so that it meets America’s economic and security needs for the 21st century,” Inouye said. “It is fundamental for America to win the future. His remarks are not meant to be a laundry list of all the issues that immigration reform should address.”
LGBT rights supporters working on immigration issues expressed gratitude to the president for giving the speech despite his lack of explicit mention of gay couples during the address.
Steve Ralls, spokesperson for Immigration Equality, said his organization wholeheartedly supports the notion expressed by Obama that immigration system should keep families together in the United States.
“We couldn’t agree more, and while the president didn’t use the ‘LGBT’ qualifier in his reference to families, we’re going to ensure the White House knows — clearly and unambiguously — that any immigration reform effort must be inclusive,” Ralls said.
Ralls added that his organization is pleased that Obama is stepping up efforts to reform the immigration system and is glad to hear him talk about an end to family separation.
“Now, we look forward to working with him, and other leaders, on a concrete plan that includes our families, too,” Ralls said. “It’s time for everyone to get into the business of reforming our laws in a way that unites, rather than separates, loved ones. That’s the right thing to do, and the goal we remain committed to.”
Lavi Soloway, co-founder of Stop the Deportations, also said he applauds the commitment to reform that President Obama expressed during his speech and for emphasizing that family unification is the bedrock of immigration law.
However, Soloway said Obama needs to take administrative action by exercising his prosecutorial authority to ensure that foreign nationals in legally recognized same-sex marriages with U.S. citizens can stay in the country without fear of deportation.
“To keep our country safe, we must focus our law enforcement resources on deporting those who have committed crimes and endanger our security,” Soloway said. “At the same time this administration must take great care that, in the zeal to achieve that goal, innocent families are not torn apart. The administration has not yet delivered fully on its goal to protect all families from deportation, where possible, by application of existing prosecutorial discretion guidelines.”
Soloway, who handles immigration cases as an attorney with Masliah & Soloway PC in New York, maintained that Obama can issue such a change because he has already determined that DOMA is unconstitutional because of the impact the anti-gay law has LGBT families, including same-sex bi-national couples.
“This administration can act now to ensure that no LGBT families are torn apart by instituting a moratorium on deportations of all spouses of lesbian and gay Americans until all married couples are treated equally under our immigration laws,” Soloway said.
National
Results from key Tuesday primary races
State officials in California had not called the governor’s race as of Wednesday morning but Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra appear likely to advance to the general election.
The race for governor has been scrambled several times after Kamala Harris opted not to run, Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out after sexual misconduct allegations surfaced, and Rep. Katie Porter’s campaign fizzled. Becerra would be the state’s first Latino governor since 1875 if elected. Hilton was endorsed by President Trump.
In the Los Angeles mayor’s race, the AP declared that incumbent Mayor Karen Bass will advance to the Nov. 3 runoff while former reality TV star Spencer Pratt and LA Council member Nithya Raman were competing for second place. California is notoriously slow in counting ballots and only about half of the results were available by Wednesday morning.
In San Francisco, Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener advanced to the general election in November, besting Supervisor Connie Chan, who was endorsed by House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is retiring from Congress after nearly 40 years in the House.
In Iowa, Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek won the primary for an open U.S. Senate seat, defeating state Sen. Zach Wahls. Turek will face Rep. Ashley Hinson, who won the GOP primary with President Donald Trump’s endorsement, in the general election.
The Iowa seat is open because Sen. Joni Ernst (R) decided not to seek re-election. The primary was closely watched by LGBTQ advocates because Wahls rose to national prominence after a speech he made defending marriage equality went viral in 2011. Wahls was raised by a lesbian couple.
National
White House Correspondents’ Dinner rescheduled after shooting
‘We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word’
The White House Correspondents’ Association announced on Tuesday that it has rescheduled its annual dinner for July 24 after the April event was halted when gunshots rang out at the Washington Hilton.
Cole Allen, 31, is charged with the attempted assassination of President Trump, who was in the ballroom at the time of the incident. One Secret Service officer was wounded in the attack. Officers stopped Allen before he could enter the ballroom where 2,500 journalists and politicos were having dinner and waiting for Trump to speak. It was Trump’s first time attending as president.
“We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word, especially during a year when we are reflecting on the 250th anniversary of America and everything we stand for,” said WHCA President Weijia Jiang in a statement to members.
She did not announce further details, including venue and ticketing.
Washington Blade White House reporter Joe Reberkenny was in the audience when shots were fired and reported live on social media from the scene.
This post will be updated as more details are announced.
Federal Government
Advocates push back on proposed FCC warning labels
New rating system public notice seeking comments issued on April 22
The Federal Communications Commission is considering a new rating system that would require a warning label to appear before any television content that includes LGBTQ characters.
On April 22, the FCC issued a public notice asking Americans to submit comments on whether the TV Oversight Management Board should create new TV ratings to alert viewers to “transgender and gender nonbinary programming” and “the discussion or promotion of gender identity themes.”
This proposed warning would appear before content, similar to warnings that explain a program contains sexual content, drug use, or violence — categories that Congress explicitly included in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 on the grounds of obscenity and violence that some parents “believe is harmful to their children.”
The public notice says that “recently, parents have raised concerns that controversial gender identity issues are being included or promoted in children’s programs without providing any disclosure or transparency to parents.”
It goes on to say that not having a warning for trans and nonbinary people is “undermining the ability of parents to make informed choices for their families.”
LGBT Tech is an organization that works to provide LGBTQ representation in mainstream media or entertainment. The group notes 81 percent of trans respondents it surveyed said these representations had a positive impact on them discovering or learning about their identity.
“These numbers reflect a basic truth: for many people, and especially young people, seeing LGBTQ+ lives represented in ordinary media is not harmful. It is formative, affirming, and often lifesaving.”
Since the public notice’s publication, more than 40 organizations have come out against the proposed alert.
GLAAD President Sarah Kate Ellis issued a statement in May on the proposal, highlighting what she described as a concerted effort by the Trump-Vance administration to other trans and nonbinary people.
“The FCC does not set TV ratings, but under this administration the FCC has repeatedly tried to control what Americans can see on their own televisions. This government overreach is dangerous and a threat to our community and our democracy,” Ellis said.
“LGBTQ+ people and their families deserve to see their lives represented in the media they watch. And media companies must have the freedom to create programming that appeals to their viewers and subscribers without interference from a government pursuing its own anti-LGBTQ+ political agenda.”
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson pointed out that this is an act of politically motivated policy, not one based on any rhyme or reason.
“LGBTQ+ stories matter and deserve to be told, seen, and heard,” Robinson said. “The Trump administration does not get to use the FCC to try and erase us simply because they want to pretend to live in a world where we don’t exist. This is a brazen form of political interference that will hurt the ability of all people to appreciate, understand, and learn about the world and people around them.”
Brian Dittmeier, director of LGBTQI+ equality at the National Women’s Law Center Action Fund, echoed Robinson’s concerns that this is attempted censorship for the sake of political gain.
“The FCC is cloaking itself in purported concern for parents in an attempt to censor content, intimidate industry, and silence depictions of our trans siblings and neighbors,” Dittmeier wrote. “The FCC is overstepping its authority to undermine the existing ratings system, which is well understood by parents and enjoys broad public support. The FCC’s presumption that it knows better does not reflect parents’ priorities and reeks of government overreach.”
PFLAG National Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs Diego Sanchez said this is federal government overreach into censorship — something the First Amendment protects against.
“The FCC has given us yet another example of what ‘small government’ means: small enough to fit in your living room; to interrupt family movie night; small enough to make home feel unsafe,” Sanchez said. “Parents and families with transgender loved ones in particular know too well how big government actions impact their families directly, because they feel those impacts before everyone else.”
This proposed warning follows a slew of other federal actions targeting trans people in America, including Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which mandated that only sex assigned at birth be used on federal government documents regardless of gender identity, as well as broad-based restrictions on gender-affirming care, particularly for trans minors.
Results from key Tuesday primary races
AIDS Healthcare Foundation announces 3 million people globally in its care
10 HIV/AIDS activists arrested on Capitol Hill
JR.’s hosts meet & greet for mayoral candidate Janeese Lewis George
