National
Gay couples discussed in Senate immigration hearing
Napolitano says no greater risk of fraud upon UAFA passage

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.”
The White House
Trump proclamation targets trans rights as State Dept. shifts visa policy
Recent policy actions from the White House limit transgender rights in sports, immigration visas, and overarching federal policy.
In a proclamation issued by the Trump White House Thursday night, the president said he would, among other things, “restore public safety” and continue “upholding the rule of law,” while promoting policies that restrict the rights of transgender people.
“We are keeping men out of women’s sports, enforcing Title IX as it was originally written, and ensuring colleges preserve — and, where possible, expand — scholarships and roster opportunities for female athletes,” the proclamation reads. “At the same time, we are restoring public safety and upholding the rule of law in every city so women, children, and families can feel safe and secure.”
The statement comes amid a broader series of actions by the Trump administration targeting transgender people across multiple federal policy areas, including education, health care, and immigration. A nearly complete list of policies the current administration has put forward can be found on KFF.org.
One day before the proclamation was issued, the U.S. State Department announced changes to visa regulations that could impact transgender and gender-nonconforming people seeking entry into the United States.
The policy, published March 11 and scheduled to take effect April 10, introduces changes to the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, commonly known as the “DV Program.” The rule is framed by the department as an effort to strengthen oversight and prevent fraud within the visa lottery system, which allocates a limited number of immigrant visas annually to applicants from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States.
However, the updated language also standardizes the use of the term “sex” in federal regulations in place of “gender,” a change that LGBTQ advocates say could create additional barriers for transgender and gender-diverse applicants.
The policy states: “The Department of State (‘Department’) is amending regulations governing the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program (‘DV Program’) to improve the integrity of, and combat fraud in, the program. These amendments require a petitioner to the DV Program to provide valid, unexpired passport information and to upload a scan of the biographic and signature page in the electronic entry form or otherwise indicate that he or she is exempt from this requirement. Additionally, the Department is standardizing and amending its regulations to add the word ‘shall’ to simplify guidance for consular officers; ensure the use of the term ‘sex’ in lieu of ‘gender’; and replace the term ‘age’ in the DV Program regulations with the phrase ‘date of birth’ to accurately reflect the information collected and maintained by the Department during the immigrant visa process.”
Advocates say the shift toward using “sex” rather than “gender” in federal immigration rules reflects a broader push by the administration to roll back recognition of transgender identities in federal policy.
According to the National Center for Transgender Equality, an estimated 15,000 to 50,000 undocumented transgender immigrants currently live in the United States, with many entering the country to seek refuge from persecution and hostile governments in their home countries.
Florida
Fla. House passes ‘Anti-Diversity’ bill
Measure could open door to overturning local LGBTQ rights protections
The Florida House of Representatives on March 10 voted 77-37 to approve an “Anti-Diversity in Local Government” bill that opponents have called an extreme and sweeping measure that, among other things, could overturn local LGBTQ rights protections.
The House vote came six days after the Florida Senate voted 25-11 to pass the same bill, opening the way to send it to Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who supports the bill and has said he would sign it into law.
Equality Florida, a statewide LGBTQ advocacy organization that opposed the legislation, issued a statement saying the bill “would ban, repeal, and defund any local government programming, policy, or activity that provides ‘preferential treatment or special benefits’ or is designed or implemented with respect to race, color, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”
The statement added that the bill would also threaten city and county officials with removal from office “for activities vaguely labeled as DEI,” with only limited exceptions.
“Written in broad and ambiguous language, the bill is the most extreme of its kind in the country, creating confusion and fear for local governments that recognize LGBTQ residents and other communities that contribute to strength and vibrancy of Florida cities,” the group said in a separate statement released on March 10.
The Miami Herald reports that state Sen. Clay Yarborough (R-Jacksonville), the lead sponsor of the bill in the Senate, said he added language to the bill that would allow the city of Orlando to continue to support the Pulse nightclub memorial, a site honoring 49 mostly LGBTQ people killed in the 2016 mass shooting at the LGBTQ nightclub.
But the Equality Florida statement expresses concern that the bill can be used to target LGBTQ programs and protections.
“Debate over the bill made expressly clear that LGBTQ people were a central target of the legislation,” the group’s statement says. “The public record, the bill sponsors’ own statements, and hours of legislative debate revealed the animus driving the effort to pressure local governments into pulling back from recognizing or resourcing programs targeting LGBTQ residents and other historically marginalized communities,” the statement says.
But the statement also notes that following outspoken requests by local officials, sponsors of the bill agreed to several amendments “ensuring local governments can continue to permit Pride festivals, even while navigating new restrictions on supporting or promoting them.”
The statement adds, “Florida’s LGBTQ community knows all too well how to fight back against unjust laws. Just as we did, following the passage of Florida’s notorious ‘Don’t Say Gay or Trans’ law, we will fight every step of the way to limit the impact of this legislation, including in the courts.”
The White House
Trump will refuse to sign voting bill without anti-trans provisions
Measure described as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’
President Donald Trump said he will refuse to sign any legislation into law unless Congress passes the “SAVE Act,” pressuring lawmakers to move forward with the controversial voting bill.
In posts on Truth Social and other social media platforms, the 47th president emphasized the importance of Republican lawmakers pushing the legislation through while also using the opportunity to denounce gender-affirming care.
“I, as President, will not sign other Bills until this is passed, AND NOT THE WATERED DOWN VERSION — GO FOR THE GOLD,” Trump posted. “MUST SHOW VOTER I.D. & PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP: NO MAIL-IN BALLOTS EXCEPT FOR MILITARY — ILLNESS, DISABILITY, TRAVEL: NO MEN IN WOMEN’S SPORTS: NO TRANSGENDER MUTILIZATION FOR CHILDREN! DO NOT FAIL!!!”
The proposed 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. Trump has also called for the legislation to include a ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, even with parental consent.
“This is a huge priority for the president. He added on some priorities to the SAVE America Act in recent days, namely, no transgender transition surgeries for minors. We are not gonna tolerate the mutilation of young children in this country. No men in women’s sports,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said. “The president putting all of these priorities together speaks to how common sense they are.”
The comments mark the first time the White House has publicly confirmed that Trump is pushing to attach anti-trans policies to the SAVE Act.
The bill would also require the removal of undocumented immigrants from existing voter rolls and allow election officials who fail to enforce the proof-of-citizenship requirement to be sued.
It is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections. Current safeguards include requirements such as providing a Social Security number when registering to vote, cross-checking voter rolls with federal data and, in some states, requiring identification at the polls.
Trump began pushing for the legislation during his State of the Union address last month, where he singled out Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) by name while criticizing the lack of movement on the bill.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has denounced the legislation as “Jim Crow 2.0” and said it has little chance of advancing through the Senate, calling it “dead on arrival.”
In remarks on the Senate floor, Schumer said “the SAVE Act includes such extreme voter registration requirements that, if enacted, could disenfranchise 21 million American citizens.”
Trump has repeatedly used political messaging around trans youth and gender-affirming care as part of broader cultural and policy debates during his presidency — most recently during his State of the Union address, where he cited the case of Sage Blair, a Virginia teenager whose school allegedly encouraged her to transition without her parents’ consent.
LGBTQ advocates — including those familiar with Blair’s story — say the situation was far more complex than described and argue that using a single anecdote to justify sweeping federal restrictions could place trans people, particularly youth, at greater risk.
-
Health4 days agoToo afraid to leave home: ICE’s toll on Latino HIV care
-
Movies5 days agoIntense doc offers transcendent treatment of queer fetish pioneer
-
The White House3 days agoTrump will refuse to sign voting bill without anti-trans provisions
-
Colombia4 days agoClaudia López wins primary in Colombian presidential race
