Connect with us

National

54 groups call on Obama to take action for bi-national couples

Letter asks DHS to place on hold marriage-based green card applications

Published

on

The White House
The White House

54 groups are calling on the White House to hold the marriage-based green cards for bi-national couples in abeyance. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

A coalition of LGBT and immigration advocacy groups are teaming up for the first-time ever to call on the Obama administration to take action on behalf of bi-national same-sex couples in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to take up litigation challenging DOMA.

In a letter written Monday to President Obama and other administration officials, the groups call on the administration to place on hold the marriage-based green card applications for bi-national same-sex couples as observers await a final decision from the Supreme Court on DOMA’s constitutionality.

“With the Supreme Court’s decision to rule on DOMA’s constitutionality, we will know by next June whether or not applications for lawful permanent residence for lesbian and gay spouses will ultimately be approvable,” the letter states. “Therefore, we are only asking that, in the interim, these applications be held for a period of a few months. Doing so will prevent extreme hardship to lesbian and gay immigrant families. By holding applications for lawful permanent residence in abeyance neither granting them nor denying them LGBT families can remain securely together in the U.S. until the Supreme Court issues its ruling next year.”

Among the 54 signatories of the letter are LGBT groups such as Immigration Equality, the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force as well as the immigration groups such as the Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund (MALDEF) and the National Council of La Raza.

Rachel Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality, said in a statement the Supreme Court’s decision to rule on DOMA signals the anti-gay law is near its end, which creates an opportune moment for the Obama administration to take action.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to review DOMA means we now have a date-certain for a final determination about the law,” Tiven said. “It makes no sense to continue denying green card applications which, if the law is struck down by the court, would be approved. By holding these applications, the administration can ensure couples will not be separated or forced into exile.”

Straight Americans can sponsor their foreign national spouses for residency in the United States. However, that option isn’t available to gay Americans in legal same-sex marriages to foreign nationals because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Under current immigration code, bi-national same-sex couples could be in danger of separation and the immigrant in the relationship without legal status could be subject to deportation. Legislation known as the Uniting American Families Act would address the issue, although the bill hasn’t moved forward.

In the letter, the groups advocacy point out that the Obama administration has taken a similar course of action in past — holding the green card applications of immigrant widows of U.S. citizens in abeyance while litigation was pursued on their behalf — in addition to holding in abeyance applications for HIV-positive foreign nationals while they awaited the end to the HIV travel ban.

Groups such as Immigration Equality have called on the Obama administration for some time to hold the marriage-based green cards in abeyance for bi-national couples, but each time in response the Department of Homeland Security says it will continue to enforce DOMA as long as it’s on the books. According to an article earlier this year in The Advocate, White House officials told LGBT advocacy groups during a meeting that the Obama administration would not take this course of action to help same-sex couples.

But Steve Ralls, spokesperson for Immigration Equality, said this letter marks the first time that LGBT and immigration groups have jointly made the request to the Obama administration.

“We have made the request before – prior to the SCOTUS cert announcement – with a smaller group of LGBT organizations,” Ralls said. “The coalition this time, however, is much larger and includes our allies in the immigration movement for the first time, too.”

In response to a request to comment on the letter, a White House spokesperson referred questions to DHS, which offered the same position articulated earlier.

Peter Boogard, a DHS spokesperson, said, “Pursuant to the Attorney General’s guidance, the Defense of Marriage Act remains in effect and the Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce it unless and until Congress repeals it, or there a final judicial determination that it is unconstitutional.”

Amid calls to hold the marriage-based green cards in abeyance, the Obama administration has taken action to address the issue. Just last month, 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.

NOTE: This posting has been updated from its initial posting to reflect the comment from Steve Ralls.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

U.S. Military/Pentagon

Federal appeals court rules White House illegally banned trans troops

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says Pentagon will appeal to SCOTUS

Published

on

The Pentagon (Photo by icholakov/Bigstock)

A panel of federal appeals court judges ruled that President Donald Trump’s policy banning transgender troops likely violates their constitutional rights.

The three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that Trump’s Executive Order 14183, also known as “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” was created with the intent to exclude people from the military based on their gender identity.

The policy argues that trans people are inherently incapable of meeting the military’s “high standards of readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity,” citing a history of or signs of gender dysphoria as the cause. According to the Defense Department, this creates “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on [an] individual.”

The policy states that, regardless of the physical or intellectual capabilities of each applicant, it views trans military applicants as a monolith, considering them less qualified than their cisgender peers.

Despite the panel’s majority opinion issued on Monday, the first day of Pride Month, the ban remains in effect. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Pentagon to enforce the policy last year and will continue to allow it to remain in place as litigation proceeds.

The panel’s new ruling will prevent the military from discharging current service members named in the lawsuit, but it does not allow new transrecruits to join.

The policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender,” Judge Robert Wilkins, a Democratic appointee of President Barack Obama wrote for the majority.

Judge Justin Walker, the author of the dissenting opinion and a Republican Trump appointee, argued that the authority to determine military policy does not rest with the courts. Instead, he wrote, the Constitution grants that power to Congress through legislation and to the president as commander in chief of the armed forces.

“We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks. The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the commander-in-chief,” Walker wrote.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth indicated that an appeal is in the works, posting, “See you at SCOTUS” on X on Monday in response to the ruling.

Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, which has led the litigation since last November, applauded the decision.

“Today’s decision is a powerful vindication of the plaintiffs’ extraordinary courage and unwavering commitment to their country,” Levi said.

The Washington Blade spoke with Second Lt. Nicolas (Nic) Talbott of the U.S. Army, the lead plaintiff in the case, and Levi from GLAD Law back in November.

While discussing the case and his experiences as a trans service member, Talbott said his identity is an asset rather than a hindrance, particularly when it comes to identifying problems and finding solutions, regardless of what others may think or say.

“Being transgender is not some sad thing that people go through,” Talbott told the Blade. “This is something that has taken years and years and years of dedication and discipline and research and ups and downs to get to the point where I am today … my ability to transition was essential to getting me to that point where I am today.”

He also discussed the impact of removing qualified and dedicated service members from the military, arguing that the consequences will be felt long after Trump leaves office.

“When we’re losing thousands of those qualified, experienced individuals … those are seats that are not just going to be able to be filled by anybody,” he said. “[That’s] military training that’s not going to be able to be replaced for years and years to come.”

“Every person who puts on the uniform is expected to make a tremendous amount of sacrifice,” Talbott said. “Who I am under this uniform should have no bearing on that … We shouldn’t be picking and choosing which veterans are worthy of our thanks on that day.”

Levi characterized the policy as overtly cruel and legally indefensible to the Blade.

“This policy and its rollout is even more cruel than the first in a number of ways,” Levi explained. “For one, the policy itself says that transgender people are dishonest, untrustworthy and undisciplined, which is deeply offensive and degrading and demeaning.”

She also argued that the administration’s cost justification is flawed, saying that removing and replacing trans service members is more expensive than retaining them.

“There’s no legitimate justification relating to cost … it is far more expensive to both purge the military of people who are serving and also to replace people … than to provide the minuscule amount of costs for medications other service members routinely get.”

Continue Reading

National

Results from key Tuesday primary races

Published

on

Democratic State Sen. Scott Wiener (Photo courtesy of Scott Wiener)

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. 

Continue Reading

National

White House Correspondents’ Dinner rescheduled after shooting

‘We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word’

Published

on

The scene inside April’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner after shots rang out. (Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

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.

Continue Reading

Popular