Connect with us

Politics

Gay GOP former congressman calls for UAFA passage

Kolbe testifies before the Senate on LGBT-inclusive immigration reform

Published

on

Jim Kolbe, gay news, Washington Blade
Jim Kolbe, gay news, Washington Blade

Former congressman Jim Kolbe testified before the Senate on UAFA (Blade file photo by Michael Key)

A gay Republican former U.S. House member testified before the Senate on Monday in favor of including bi-national same-sex couples as part of comprehensive immigration reform — an issue that affects him personally.

Jim Kolbe, who represented Arizona in Congress from 1985 to 2007, spoke during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about LGBT-inclusion in immigration reform both in personal terms and economic benefits for the country.

“While the bill you are considering is an excellent starting point for reform, I submit to you that it is still incomplete,” Kolbe said. “Families like mine are left behind as part of this proposal.”

Language to enable gay Americans to sponsor a same-sex partner for residency in the United States wasn’t included as part of the 844-page base bill for comprehensive immigration reform that was produced by the “Gang of Eight.”

Standalone legislation along these lines is known as the Uniting American Families Act. LGBT advocates say they’ve received assurances such language would be offered as an amendment — possibly by Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) — when the committee marks up the reform legislation.

Kolbe is in an eight-year relationship with Panama native Hector Alfonso, who came to the United States on Fulbright scholarship to pursue studies in special education and has been a teacher for two decades. The couple had to endure a year-long separation when Alfonso had to return to Panama while immigration issues were being sorted out, although he’s now in the United States on a green card.

“It was a long process; it was an expensive far beyond the reach of most families,” Kolbe said. “We are immensely fortunate that Hector has now secured an investment visa that allows him to remain here with me. Many other couples, however, are not so fortunate. Their ability to secure a solution that will allow them to build a home, family and business together is elusive and difficult to realize.”

Kolbe, a trade expert who works at the German Marshall Fund think tank, also addressed economic benefits of passing language for bi-national same-sex couples as part of immigration reform — particularly support for the provision among U.S. businesses.

“The comprehensive immigration reform bill now under consideration by this Committee includes important provisions to make U.S. businesses more competitive,” Kolbe said. “UAFA does the same, which is why it is supported by Fortune 500 companies like Intel, Marriott, Texas Instruments and US Airways, who have called on lawmakers of both parties to support its passage. The failure to recognize lesbian and gay families in our immigration laws has a direct impact on American business.”

As part of his testimony, Kolbe read a letter signed by 28 prominent American businesses calling for UAFA citing loss of productivity, costs of transferring and retaining employees and missed opportunities to bring talent into the United States as a result of the current system.

“It is time, Chairman Leahy and members of the Committee, to fix this part of our immigration law,” Kolbe concluded. “The opportunity is too rare, and the positive impact too great to leave anyone behind. Adding UAFA to the committee bill would be a big step toward making it a truly comprehensive bill.”

Kolbe and Alfonso plan to wed in D.C. on May 18. While straight Americans are able to sponsor their foreign spouses for residency within the United States, Kolbe doesn’t have that option because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which he voted for as a member of Congress in 1996. The U.S. Supreme Court could address this problem if justices issue a ruling by June striking down Section 3 of DOMA as a result of pending litigation.

Steve Ralls, a spokesperson for the LGBT group Immigration Equality, said Kolbe’s personal story and background as a member of Congress make him an excellent spokesperson for UAFA.

“Congressman Kolbe is the perfect messenger to remind Senators that this is about families, not partisan politics,” Ralls said. “This issue impacts Republicans and Democrats, and it UAFA’s inclusion in the bill should garner bipartisan support, too.”

A number of Democratic senators on the panel expressed support for Kolbe and including UAFA as part of immigration reform, such as Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.). Republicans were present during the hearing — including Ranking Member Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) — but didn’t address Kolbe’s testimony or UAFA.

Franken, a UAFA co-sponsor, was among those who expressed support for including UAFA as part of immigration reform, saying he and colleagues will do “everything we can” to amend reform to include the measure.

“You’re not alone,” Franken said. “I’ve heard many stories from my LGBT constituents about how our immigration system is tearing their families apart.”

Franken cited a story from a constituent, whom he called “Mark,” a Fortune 500 company worker who has an Italian partner, Alberto, that intended to move to Minnesota under a waiver program for Europeans.

According to Franken, when they were identified as a same-sex couple by Customs & Border Protection at the airport, Alberto was interrogated, forced to surrender his personal email password and was eventually he couldn’t remain in the country. Alberto is now in the United States on a visa, but that’s only a temporary solution.

“Mark is prohibited from sponsoring Alberto for permanent residency,” Franken said. “Under current law, Mark must choose between his career and the person he loves. It isn’t fair, it’s wrong and I just wanted to tell you that I and many others senators on this panel are going to do everything we can to try to see that we amend this bill to protect all families, including those of all LGBT Americans.”

Another question came from Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), another UAFA co-sponsor, who asked how the issue for bi-national same-sex couples would be affected if the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA. Kolbe said it’s not clear what the ruling of the Supreme Court would be in June, but emphasized the legislation isn’t about marriage.

“This bill does not deal with the issue of marriage at all,” Kolbe replied. “While DOMA defines marriage as between a man and a woman for federal purposes, this legislation simply says for immigration purposes, an individual can immigrate into the United States.”

Following the hearing, Kolbe told the Washington Blade that nothing the senators said surprised him and other issues related to immigration reform, such as temporary employment for migrant workers, were more controversial than same-sex couples.

“There was nothing that was terribly surprising in the questions,” Kolbe said. “I think it went pretty much as expected. I think all the members are really focused very heavily on this H-1B program and how that’s going to be made to work.”

Kolbe said he believes the committee has the votes to amend the immigration legislation, but whether that will remain in the bill as the legislative process goes forward remains in question.

“I think it’s very likely that it will be included in the bill when it goes to the Senate floor,” Kolbe said. “What will happen on the floor — and even more critically, what will happen in the House of Representatives — I think it’s just way to early to tell yet.”

Read Kolbe’s written testimony here.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Politics

After Biden signs TikTok ban its CEO vows federal court battle

“Rest assured, we aren’t going anywhere,” CEO said

Published

on

TikTok mobile phone app. (Screenshot/YouTube)

President Joe Biden signed an appropriations bill into law on Wednesday that provides multi-billion dollar funding and military aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan after months of delay and Congressional infighting.

A separate bill Biden signed within the aid package contained a bipartisan provision that will ban the popular social media app TikTok from the United States if its Chinese parent company ByteDance does not sell off the American subsidiary.

Reacting, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew said Wednesday that the Culver City, Calif.-based company would go to court to try to remain online in the U.S.

In a video posted on the company’s social media accounts, Chew denounced the potential ban: “Make no mistake, this is a ban, a ban of TikTok and a ban on you and your voice,” Chew said. “Rest assured, we aren’t going anywhere. We are confident and we will keep fighting for your rights in the courts. The facts and the constitution are on our side, and we expect to prevail,” he added.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre adamantly denied during a press briefing on Wednesday that the bill constitutes a ban, reiterating the administration’s hope that TikTok will be purchased by a third-party buyer and referencing media reports about the many firms that are interested.

Chew has repeatedly testified in both the House and Senate regarding ByteDance’s ability to mine personal data of its 170 million plus American subscribers, maintaining that user data is secure and not shared with either ByteDance nor agencies of the Chinese government. The testimony failed to assuage lawmakers’ doubts.

In an email, the former chair of the House Intelligence Committee, U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who doesn’t support a blanket ban of the app, told the Washington Blade:

“As the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I have long worked to safeguard Americans’ freedoms and security both at home and abroad. The Chinese Communist Party’s ability to exploit private user data and to manipulate public opinion through TikTok present serious national security concerns. For that reason, I believe that divestiture presents the best option to preserve access to the platform, while ameliorating these risks. I do not support a ban on TikTok while there are other less restrictive means available, and this legislation will give the administration the leverage and authority to require divestiture.”

A spokesperson for U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) told the Blade: “Senator Padilla believes we can support speech and creativity while also protecting data privacy and security. TikTok’s relationship to the Chinese Communist Party poses significant data privacy concerns. He will continue working with the Biden-Harris administration and his colleagues in Congress to safeguard Americans’ data privacy and foster continued innovation.”

The law, which gives ByteDance 270 days to divest TikTok’s U.S. assets, expires with a January 19, 2025 deadline for a sale. The date is one day before Biden’s term is set to expire, although he could extend the deadline by three months if he determines ByteDance is making progress or the transaction faces uncertainty in a federal court.

Former President Donald Trump’s executive order in 2020, which sought to ban TikTok and Chinese-owned WeChat, a unit of Beijing-based Tencent, in the U.S., was blocked by federal courts.

TikTok has previously fought efforts to ban its widely popular app by the state of Montana last year, in a case that saw a federal judge in Helena block that state ban, citing free-speech grounds.

The South China Morning Post reported this week that the four-year battle over TikTok is a significant front in a war over the internet and technology between Washington and Beijing. Last week, Apple said China had ordered it to remove Meta Platforms’s WhatsApp and Threads from its App Store in China over Chinese national security concerns.

A spokesperson for the ACLU told the Blade in a statement that “banning or requiring divestiture of TikTok would set an alarming global precedent for excessive government control over social media platforms.”

LGBTQ TikToker users are alarmed, fearing that a ban will represent the disruption of networks of support and activism. However, queer social media influencers who operate on multiple platforms expressed some doubts as to long term impact.

Los Angeles Blade contributor Chris Stanley told the Blade:

“It might affect us slightly, because TikTok is so easy to go viral on. Which obviously means more brand deals, etc. However they also suppress and shadow ban LGBTQ creators frequently. But we will definitely be focusing our energy more on other platforms with this uncertainty going forward. Lucky for us, we aren’t one trick ponies and have multiple other platforms built.”

Brooklyn, N.Y.,-based gay social media creator and influencer Artem Bezrukavenko told the Blade:

“For smart creators it won’t because they have multiple platforms. For people who put all their livelihood yes. Like people who do livestreams,” he said adding: “Personally I’m happy it gets banned or American company will own it so they will be less homophobic to us.”

TikTok’s LGBTQ following has generally positive experiences although there have been widely reported instances of users, notably transgender users, seemingly targeted by the platform’s algorithms and having their accounts banned or repeatedly suspended.

Of greater concern is the staggering rise in anti-LGBTQ violence and threats on the platform prompting LGBTQ advocacy group GLAAD, in its annual Social Media Safety Index, to give TikTok a failing score on LGBTQ safety.

Additional reporting by Christopher Kane

Continue Reading

Politics

Smithsonian staff concerned about future of LGBTQ programming amid GOP scrutiny

Secretary Lonnie Bunch says ‘LGBTQ+ content is welcome’

Published

on

Lonnie G. Bunch III, secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, appears before a Dec. 2023 hearing of the U.S. Committee on House Administration (Screen capture: Forbes/YouTube)

Staff at the Smithsonian Institution are concerned about the future of LGBTQ programming as several events featuring a drag performer were cancelled or postponed following scrutiny by House Republicans, according to emails reviewed by the Washington Post.

In December, Secretary Lonnie G. Bunch III appeared before a hearing led by GOP members of the Committee on House Administration, who flagged concerns about the Smithsonian’s involvement in “the Left’s indoctrination of our children.”

Under questioning from U.S. Rep. Stephanie Bice (R-Okla.), Bunch said he was “surprised” to learn the Smithsonian had hosted six drag events over the past three years, telling the lawmakers “It’s not appropriate to expose children” to these performances.

Collaborations with drag artist Pattie Gonia in December, January, and March were subsequently postponed or cancelled, the Post reported on Saturday, adding that a Smithsonian spokesperson blamed “budgetary constraints and other resource issues” and the museums are still developing programming for Pride month in June.

“I, along with all senior leaders, take seriously the concerns expressed by staff and will continue to do so,” Bunch said in a statement to the paper. “As we have reiterated, LGBTQ+ content is welcome at the Smithsonian.”

The secretary sent an email on Friday expressing plans to meet with leaders of the Smithsonian Pride Alliance, one of the two groups that detailed their concerns to him following December’s hearing.

Bunch told the Pride Alliance in January that with his response to Bice’s question, his intention was to “immediately stress that the Smithsonian does not expose children to inappropriate content.”

“A hearing setting does not give you ample time to expand,” he said, adding that with more time he would have spoken “more broadly about the merits and goals of our programming and content development and how we equip parents to make choices about what content their children experience.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Survey finds support for Biden among LGBTQ adults persists despite misgivings

Data for Progress previewed the results exclusively with the Blade

Published

on

Former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A new survey by Data for Progress found LGBTQ adults overwhelmingly favor President Joe Biden and Democrats over his 2024 rival former President Donald Trump and Republicans, but responses to other questions may signal potential headwinds for Biden’s reelection campaign.

The organization shared the findings of its poll, which included 873 respondents from across the country including an oversample of transgender adults, exclusively with the Washington Blade on Thursday.

Despite the clear margin of support for the president, with only 22 percent of respondents reporting that they have a very favorable or somewhat favorable opinion of Trump, answers were more mixed when it came to assessments of Biden’s performance over the past four years and his party’s record of protecting queer and trans Americans.

Forty-five percent of respondents said the Biden-Harris administration has performed better than they expected, while 47 percent said the administration’s record has been worse than they anticipated. A greater margin of trans adults in the survey — 52 vs. 37 percent — said their expectations were not met.

Seventy precent of all LGBTQ respondents and 81 percent of those who identify as trans said the Democratic Party should be doing more for queer and trans folks, while just 24 percent of all survey participants and 17 percent of trans participants agreed the party is already doing enough.

With respect to the issues respondents care about the most when deciding between the candidates on their ballots, LGBTQ issues were second only to the economy, eclipsing other considerations like abortion and threats to democracy.

These answers may reflect heightened fear and anxiety among LGBTQ adults as a consequence of the dramatic uptick over the past few years in rhetorical, legislative, and violent bias-motivated attacks against the community, especially targeting queer and trans folks.

The survey found that while LGBTQ adults are highly motivated to vote in November, there are signs of ennui. For example, enthusiasm was substantially lower among those aged 18 to 24 and 25 to 39 compared with adults 40 and older. And a plurality of younger LGBTQ respondents said they believe that neither of the country’s two major political parties care about them.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign Up for Weekly E-Blast

Follow Us @washblade

Advertisement

Popular