New Report On Progress In LGBTQ Immigration

A new report from Funders for LGBTQ Issues, titled Pathways Forward, has been released.
From the introduction:

For most of the twentieth century, anyone who openly identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) was banned from immigrating to the United States. HIV-positive people were also barred from entry. Until 2013, the immigration system denied recognition of LGBT families: the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prevented gay, lesbian, and bisexual U.S. citizens from sponsoring their same-sex partners for permanent residence. 

Slowly, over the past three decades, all of that has changed. The ban on LGBT people was repealed in 1990, and the ban on people living with HIV was lifted in 2008. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Windsor decision overturned part of DOMA, recognizing the legitimacy of binational same-sex couples, ending years of separation and uncertainty for tens of thousands of couples.  

But the pathways to equality and basic quality of life is still hard for the vast majority of LGBT immigrants in the U.S., who now number an estimated 904,000. By comparison, New York State is home to 575,000 "out" LGBT adults. In fact, nearly a tenth of the nearly 9 million "out" LGBT adults are immigrants.

The full report is 24-pages long but is chock-full of important information like:

Funding for LGBTQ immigration issues has risen 20-fold from $146,000 in 2002 to over four million dollars in 2012.

As a former board member of Immigration Equality and an immigrant myself, this is good news!

POLL: Californians Support Marriage Equality, Marijuana Legalization, Abortion Rights

A new PPIC poll documents California's liberal bonafides on a number of "hot button" issues such as marriage equality, marijuana legalization, health care reform and comprehensive immigration reform.

Majorities of Californians support legalizing marijuana and same-sex marriage and preserving access to abortion—three social issues that have been contentious across the nation. A slim majority of adults (52%) say marijuana use should be legalized—a record high and the first time support has been above 50 percent. A larger majority of likely voters (60%) favor legalization. Democrats (64%), independents (60%), and men (57%) are more likely than Republicans (45%) and women (47%) to favor legalization. Majorities (61% adults, 68% likely voters) also say the U.S. government should not enforce federal marijuana laws in the states that allow marijuana use.

Support for same-sex marriage is also at a record high, with 61 percent of adults and 64 percent of likely voters in favor. Strong majorities of Democrats (76%) and independents (67%) favor allowing gays and lesbians to legally marry, while 53 percent of Republicans are opposed. Although support continues to be higher among young Californians, a majority of those age 55 and older (55%) are also in favor for the first time. Support has increased 15 points among mainline Protestants since May (55% to 70%).

Large majorities (70% adults, 79% likely voters) say the government should not interfere with a woman’s access to abortion. This view is held by majorities across parties, regions, and demographic groups. And 69 percent say the Supreme Court should leave access to abortion the way it is now (49%) or make it more accessible (20%), compared to 27 percent who would like the court to make it less accessible.

 This is not surprising, but it is useful to see in writing just how different from the rest of the United States, California is, despite having nearly 13% of the country's population.

Hat/tip to San Diego Union-Tribune

Saturday Politics: Racial Disparities Between Republican and Democrat U.S. House Districts

The above graphic explains why Members of Congress who are Republicans and Democrats have very different feelings about immigration reform and other issues. Republican Members of Congress represent congressional districts generally have more White people and fewer people of color than Democrats.

Leahy Submits Pro-LGBT Amendment To Immigration Bill

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has introduced a pro-gay amendment to the comprehensive immigration bill being debated on the floor of the United States Senate which would solve the immigration problems for most same-sex binational couples. This a surprise because Leahy shocked (and disappointed) many LGBT people when he decided at the last minute to withdraw his pro-gay amendments when the bill was before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which he chairs, in order to help the bill advance with Republican votes.

The text of the amendment states that its purpose is:

To recognize, for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act, any marriage entered into in full compliance with the laws of the State or foreign country within which such marriage was performed.

It does so by saying that any marriage (including same-sex marriages) which are legal n the jurisdiction in which they were performed will be recognized as a marriage for the purposes of immigration law. Importantly,  the marriage would still be recognized for immigration purposes even if the state in which the couple lives or moves to does not recognize that marriage as legal.

Lavi Soloway of the DOMA Project explains implications of the Leahy amendment:

With this bold move, Senator Leahy has carved out an exception to the Defense of Marriage Act for lesbian and gay binational couples that will provide access to existing marriage-related family unification provisions of our immigration law. The Leahy amendment does not actually amend any current provision of our immigration law, but simply removes the extrinsic barrier caused by DOMA that prevents lesbian and gay Americans from filing petitions for their spouses, fiance(e)s and stepchildren. The implication of Senator Leahy's focus on equality is that LGBT families are no different than any other American families comprised of citizens and non-citizens.

The unfortunate part of not having the amendment pass in committee as opposed to on the floor of the Senate is that in committee it needed a majority vote (which could have been provided by all Democrats) while on the floor it will almost certainly require 60 votes to be included in the comprehensive immigration bill working its way though the Senate.

Stay tuned!

Saturday Politics: LGBT Equality and Immigration Reform

As readers of this blog know, I am myself a gay immigrant (now a naturalized citizen of the United States). So, I am following the discussions and politics around comprehensive immigration reform quite closely. One of the most important issues to me (and many other people) is how immigration reform will deal with the plight of same-sex binational couples. Under current law, there is no way for a U.S. citizen or permanent resident to sponsor their foreign-born spouse or partner to remain in the United States permanently. Partly this is is due to the fact that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prohibits the federal government from providing any federal right or benefit to legally same-sex married couples, but it also is a result of Congress' inaction to fix this injustice towards same-sex couples. (It should be noted that there are 18 countries who allow their citizens to sponsor a foreign-born same-sex partner to remain with them permanently, and several of these countries do not recognize same-sex marriage.)

Of course, generally the  people who hate the LGBT community and oppose any establishment or strengthening protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (i.e. heterosexual supremacists) are also generally the same people who hate immigrants as well (i.e. xenophobes and oftentimes nativist racists), although these two sets of people are not completely overlapping. (Not all homophobes are xenophobic and not all racist xenophobes are anti-gay. However, a significant fraction of the Republican Congressmembers are both anti-gay and anti-immigrant)

The current draft comprehensive immigration reform bill in the Senate (often referred to as the Gang of Eight's CIR bill) does not include a provision helping same-sex binational couples, although the President's immigration blueprint of reform principles does.

So there is an intriguing political question of what will happen when the political desires of the LGBT community to be included in CIR collides with the Republican xenophobia and homophobia? The Go8 CITR bill is being marked up in the Senate Judiciary Committee next week and the Democrats are expected to offer an amendment that includes the entire text of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) that would solve the same-sex binational couples' issue by creating a new class of visa for sponsorship of "permanent partners" for those who can not get married and sponsor their spouse for a permanent resident visa.

The Republicans involved in immigration reform have been repeatedly saying that including "social issues" like LGBT equality will derail any chances of comprehensive immigration reform. Cue the New York Times:

Now, with the immigration bill scheduled to advance next week toward a vote in the Judiciary Committee, Democrats are in a quandary about whether to offer an amendment that would give green cards to same-sex partners. 

Republican sponsors of the overhaul warned on Tuesday that such an amendment would sink the entire measure.  

“There’s a reason this language wasn’t included in the Gang of Eight’s bill: It’s a deal-breaker for most Republicans,” Senator Flake said. “Finding consensus on immigration legislation is tough enough without opening the bill up to social issues.” 

Under existing immigration law, it is generally a quick and straightforward process when an American citizen seeks a green card for a foreign-born spouse in a traditional marriage. 

But under a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, Americans cannot apply for green cards for foreign spouses of the same sex. In addition, the immigration code does not recognize same-sex partners.

Interestingly, a number of LGBT groups pushed back hard this week on the notion that including same-sex couples in comprehensive immigration reform would weaken the bill:

Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, issued a statement late Wednesday saying Congress must pass an immigration bill that includes gay couples and the notion that their addition would block the legislation from passing is an “offensive ruse.”

“This bluster is nothing more than a political maneuver designed to divide the pro-reform coalition and at the same time appease a small but vocal group of social conservatives that will do anything to stop progress for lesbian and gay couples,” Griffin said. “The LGBT community will not stand for Congress placing the blame of their own dysfunction on our shoulders.”

Another joint statement earlier in the day from a quintet of LGBT organizations — the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, United We Dream and Queer Undocumented Immigrant Project — expressed a similar sentiment.

“We do not believe that our friends in the evangelical faith community or conservative Republicans would allow the entire immigration reform bill to fail simply because it affords 28,500 same-sex couples equal immigration rights,” the organizations state. “This take-it-or-leave-it stance with regard to same-sex bi-national couples is not helpful when we all share the same goal of passing comprehensive immigration reform that provides a path to citizenship.”

Both of these statements emphasize that LGBT groups support passage of comprehensive immigration reform and take note of an estimate from the Williams Institute that 267,000 of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States are LGBT.

This is a tough one. There are roughly 9 times as many LGBT immigrants who will be positively impacted by comprehensive immigration reform as who will be negatively impacted by a CIR bill that does not include UAFA. I am fan of the Williams Institute, but their estimate that less than 2.5% of all undocumented immigrants are LGBT seems woefully low to me. The only reason to keep UAFA out of CIR is to placate Republican's homophobia while the Republicans are presumably playing down their own xenophobia. Would you agree to a sexist compromise on a racist bill? When multiple identities combine and compete against each other, usually everyone loses.

However, a significant part of this issue may be resolved after June 27th if the Supreme Court (as expected) strikes down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act and the Obama administration starts issuing permanent resident visas (i.e. green cards) to legally married same-sex couples. It's unlikely CIR will have become law by then so Senate Democrats should move forward with including UAFA now and wait and see if DOMA is still valid law when they make their final vote on the bill.

President Obama himself (finally!) weighed in on this issue, saying while in Costa Rica yesterday that he supports inclusion of LGBT couples in immigration reform. The Miami Times reports:

 President Barack Obama says he supports recognizing gay unions in a broad immigration bill pending in Congress but won't say whether he would sign legislation that fails to do so.

Obama says that recognizing same-sex relationships in the bill is "the right thing to do." But he says it would be premature to telegraph what he will or won't do before lawmakers send him a bill.

Gay rights supporters are pushing for an amendment to the bill to allow gays to sponsor their partners to come to the U.S.

But Republicans, including some who helped draft the bill, have made it clear that amending the legislation in that fashion would cost their support.

I say call the Republicans bluff. There are over 800 pages in the bill which will impact 11 million undocumented immigrants and hundreds of billions of dollars and they are going to blow it up because the bill will allow same-sex binational couples to remain families?

Really? Bring it on.

POLL: Nationwide Support For Marriage Equality

A new poll from ABC News/Washington Post has progressives like myself smiling because they show majority support for the liberal position on immigration reform and marriage equality with marijuana legalization very closely split.

After last Tuesday's results which showed that in Maryland, Maine, Minnesota and Washington majorities of voters supported the pro-marriage equality position at the ballot it is not surprising that a new poll shows that 51% if respondents support marriage equality versus 47% who oppose it.

GAY MARRIAGE – Fifty-one percent of Americans support gay marriage, slightly more than half for the fifth time straight in ABC/Post polls since March 2011, and up sharply from its levels in similar questions earlier this decade, as low as 32 percent (of registered voters) in mid-2004. 

More in this survey are “opposed” to gay marriage, 47 percent, than said in recent polls that it should be “illegal” (39 percent last May), likely because making something illegal is more punitive than opposing it personally. 

While 30 states have constitutionally banned gay marriage, voters approved pro-gay marriage ballot initiatives in Maryland, Maine and Washington last week, and those in Minnesota rejected a constitutional ban on it. Obama announced his personal support for gay marriage in May, saying individual states should decide on its legality. 

Last week’s exit poll found voters similarly divided, 49-46 percent, on gay marriage. Supporters favored Obama over Mitt Romney by 73-25 percent. And Obama won gay and lesbian voters, 5 percent of the electorate, by 76-22 percent, vs. 70-27 percent in 2008. 

Support for gay marriage in this poll tops out at more than three in four liberals and more than six in 10 young adults and Democrats. It’s opposed by a broad 81 percent of those who describe themselves as “very conservative,” and by two-thirds of senior citizens.

This is just another example of how the electorate did not just reject Mitt Romney as a candidate, but conservative ideology as a political philosophy. It will be interesting to see how they react.

POLLS: Marriage Equality Ahead in Maryland

There have been many polls on marriage equality about Marriage Equality in light of the referendum campaign around Question 6, which if passed would uphold that state's marriage equality law.

The latest poll from Washington Post continues to show an edge for Question 6 in Maryland, with 52% in support of marriage equality while 43% oppose it.

This is the fourth poll in a row which shows that marriage equality is ahead in Maryland, as summarized by the LGBT Think Progress blog as 49-39, 51-43, and 54-40 and depicted graphically above. Veterans of previous ballot fights over marriage equality such as myself would note that none of these public polls are sufficiently above the all-important 50% barrier outside the margin of error for the poll, which makes us nervous.

Then again, it's better to be publicly ahead then publicly behind. It's also encouraging to see that in Maryland, polls suggest that voters are supporting the referendum on Question 4 by an overwhelming 59% to 35% margin. Question 4, if passed, would enact a state version of the DREAM Act. It's hard to see Maryland voters passing question 4 and rejecting Question 6 on the same day, so the healthy margin for Question 4 is also encouraging.

Hat/tip to LGBT Think Progress.

Collins Becomes 1st Republican UAFA Co-Sponsor

The Uniting All Families Act (UAFA) is important federal legislation (S. 821/H.R. 1537) which, if enacted, would allow LGBT  Americans in same-sex bi-national relationships to sponsor their foreign partner to receive permanent residency in the United States based on the relationship to a United States citizen or permanent resident. The activist group Immigration Equality estimates there are 36,000 same-sex binational couples who currently live in the United States. (As usual, it should be noted that I continue to serve on the board of directors of both Immigration Equality and Immigration Equality Action Fund).

UAFA has slowly been increasing the number of Congressional co-sponsors with 142 in the House and 28 in the Senate the most ever. This week the bill picked up its first Republican co-sponsor in Congress, Susan Collins of Maine. Amazingly, the bill (H.R. 1537) has no Republican co-sponsor in the U.S. House of Representatives, not even Cuban-American Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen who has endorsed marriage equality and has co-sponsored the DOMA-repeal bill, the Respect for Marriage Act. I guess there is something about the intersection of LGBT rights and immigration, two issues which the Republican party has identified itself recently in opposition to, that makes it doubly difficult to enact any forward progress in what is now a xenophobic and homophobic party.

Log Cabin Republicans sent out a press release trumpeting Collins' action:

“This legislation would simply update our nation’s immigration laws to treat bi-national couples equally,” Senator Susan Collins said. “More than two dozen countries recognize same-sex couples for immigration purposes. This important civil rights legislation would help prevent committed, loving families from being forced to choose between leaving their family or leaving their country.”

“Log Cabin Republicans are grateful to Senator Collins for continuing to be the tip of the spear as a Republican fighting for LGBT families. The Uniting American Families Act is a vital piece of legislation for many in our community who for too long have been forced to choose between their love of country, and the loves of their lives,” said Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper. “With no ability to sponsor their partners, Americans are being forced abroad, taking their tax base, their talent, and enterprise to the more than 25 countries that offer residency for lesbian and gay partners. The Uniting American Families Act would allow Americans to sponsor their permanent partners for residency, benefiting both these American citizens and the companies which employ them. Log Cabin is proud to support the Uniting American Families Act, and we are committed to continuing our partnership with our allies at Immigration Equality to send Senator Collins the reinforcements she needs to make this bill a reality.”

One should note that this now means that of the 170 Congressional sponsors of the legislation, there is exactly one Republican. This is an indication of the ratio of positive actions towards LGBT equality by Democrats as opposed to positive actions by Republicans, which is precisely part of what Barney Frank was trying to say when he excoriated the Log Cabin Republicans  a few weeks ago.

Of course it is impossible to enact UAFA without Republican support in both the House and Senate since Republicans control one body and have enough members to stop any action in the other. But it is also true that if there were fewer Republicans in Congress, the chances of UAFA becoming law would increase not decrease. So, since Log Cabin Republicans exist to support Republicans, it is really not clear that they are actually increasing the likelihood of future LGBT legislative victories. However, since it is unlikely the Republican party is going to disappear any time soon(or that Democrats will have unfettered control of Congress), it is better that Log Cabin exists and works with Republicans than having them not exist. (So this is where I disagree with Barney Frank).

What do you think (about the existential question regarding gay Republicans)?

READ: Letter From 67 U.S. Reps To DHS Napolitano

LGBT Immigration Letter to DHS Sec Napolitano By U.S. Reps

SHOCKER! Alabama Passes Racist Immigration Law

Following up on the controversial passage of Arizona's SB 1070 last year and Republican's assuming control of state houses after the midterm elections, several states have attempted to pass even stricter legislation to "regulate immigration." On Thursday, Alabama's Republican governor Robert Bentley signed what he promises is the nation's toughest anti-immigration law.

The PBS News Hour described some of the more prominent provisions:

In addition to allowing law enforcement officers to arrest and detain anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally, Alabama’s measure introduces new rules for educators, would-be landlords, and businesses.


"This signals real momentum on the side of immigration hawks," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank in favor of stricter enforcement. Among the provisions of the new law:

• Public schools will have to confirm students’ legal residency status through birth certificates or sworn affidavits.
• Illegal immigrants are banned from attending state colleges. 
• Transporting, harboring, or renting property to undocumented immigrants will be illegal.

The housing aspect is one that Ali Noorani of the immigrant-rights group the National Immigration Forum finds troubling: “This is of special concern to mixed status families – children could be arrested for transporting their undocumented parents, for example. It can also impact churches who are ‘transporting’ immigrants to church or are providing any services that may be considered as ‘harboring.'"

Georgia and Utah have also passed anti-immigration laws this year. Utah's law has already been enjoined in court. Arizona's SB 1070 has also been enjoined and has been appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Alabama's Latino population has doubled to a high of 3.9% from 2000 to 2010. I wonder how many white people will be arrested by Alabama police in order to have their immigration status tested?

Majority Supports Path To Citizenship For Undocumented Immigrants

Matt Yglesisas posts this graphic demonstrating the results of a  poll which says that a majority of the public supports President Obama's position on immigration reform: we should include a path to citizenship for people who are living in the United States right now without the required legal documentation to work or immigrate. (This is what Republican conservatives like to call "amnesty.") Note that even staunch conservatives are split evenly on the question "Do you favor or oppose providing a way for illegal immigrants currently in the country to gain legal citizenship if they pass background checks, pay fines and have jobs?"

On a related note, Arizona is appealing it's illegal scheme to attempt to regulate immigration (better known as SB 1070) to the United States Supreme Court. Every federal court that has looked at SB 1070 has ruled it unconstitutional so far.

Immigration Equality Releases LGBT Asylum Stats

Immigration Equality, the national LGBT immigration advocacy organization (on whose board MadProfessah sits) announced today that they had won over 101 asylum cases in 2010:

Immigration Equality, a national organization that helps obtain asylum for individuals persecuted in their home country based on their sexual orientation, gender identity or HIV-status, announced today that its legal and pro bono teams won a record 101 cases in 2010.  An overwhelming number of those wins – 38 - were for clients from the Caribbean, with 28 of those for individuals from Jamaica.  Other cases included 24 asylum seekers from Central and South America; 16 from Eastern Europe (including seven Russian clients); nine from the African continent and five from the Middle East. 

Immigration Equality maintains the largest pro bono network of attorneys – in addition to its in-house legal staff – dedicated solely to securing asylum for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender asylum seekers.  Firms providing pro bono representation for Immigration Equality clients include Dewey & LeBoeuf; Jones Day; Kirkland and Ellis; Latham Watkins; Ropes and Gray; Skadden; Weill  Gotshal; and White & Case. In addition to the 2010 wins announced today, the organization has 97 additional cases, filed in 2010, which are awaiting a ruling, as well as several cases filed prior to 2010. 

“For too many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, the world remains a dangerous place,” said Rachel B. Tiven, the group’s executive director.  “In many cases, the clients who turn to Immigration Equality for help are literally running for their lives.  They have been mistreated and beaten by authorities in their home country, disowned by their families and ostracized by society.  By offering them safe haven, the United States is not only saving their lives, but benefitting from the talent, skills and service these asylees bring to our country.  We are proud, and honored, to help them begin life anew here in their adopted homeland.”

[...]

Immigration Equality 2010 Asylum Wins by Country *

Jamaica                        28
Russia                          7
Grenada                       4
Peru                             4
Uzbekistan                  4
Venezuela                    3
Mexico                         3
Ghana                          3
El Salvador                  3        

* Countries from which Immigration Equality had 2 or fewer wins are not listed.
Total 2010 wins include six individuals who won withholding of removal or secured relief under the Convention Against Torture Treaty (CAT).

Notice that 2 of the top 3 countries are in the West Indies. In fact, Grenada is the country where I was born.

Roll Call Votes on DREAM Act and DADT Repeal

Note there was only one Republican who both voted for DADT and the DREAM Act: Lisa Murkowski!
There were 52 Democrats (and Independents) who voted for both.

But the Hall of Shame is for the 5 Democratic Dream Killers who voted against the DREAM Act (Baucus, Hagan, Nelson, Pryor, Tester). Three of these Senators are up for re-election in 2012 (likely to be a harsh year for Senate Democrats) and I pledge to donate to their primary challengers.

Here's the roll call vote on the 55-41 cloture vote on the DREAM Act which FAILED.

YEAs ---55
Akaka (D-HI) Bayh (D-IN) Begich (D-AK) Bennet (D-CO) Bennett (R-UT) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Conrad (D-ND) Coons (D-DE) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA)	Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD)	Murkowski (R-AK) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Specter (D-PA) Stabenow (D-MI) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---41
Alexander (R-TN) Barrasso (R-WY) Baucus (D-MT) Bond (R-MO) Brown (R-MA) Brownback (R-KS) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID)	DeMint (R-SC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Hagan (D-NC) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Kirk (R-IL) Kyl (R-AZ) LeMieux (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ)	McConnell (R-KY) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Snowe (R-ME) Tester (D-MT) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting - 4
Bunning (R-KY) Gregg (R-NH)	Hatch (R-UT) Manchin (D-WV)

Here's the roll call vote on the 63-33 cloture vote on the DADT Repeal Bill which PASSED.

YEAs ---63
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Begich (D-AK) Bennet (D-CO) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Brown (R-MA) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Coons (D-DE) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA)	Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY) Hagan (D-NC) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Kirk (R-IL) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK)	Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (D-PA) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (D-VA) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---33
Alexander (R-TN) Barrasso (R-WY) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX)	Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Kyl (R-AZ)	LeMieux (R-FL) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting - 4
Bunning (R-KY) Gregg (R-NH)	Hatch (R-UT) Manchin (D-WV)

DADT Passes 63-33, DREAM Act Fails 55-41!

It feels like election day 2008 again. Happiness that finally some action has occurred on the LGBT legislative agenda but I'm devastated that the DREAM Act will not become law anytime soon.

So this time LGBT people won, but people of color lost. In 2008, people of color won (with the election of President Obama) but LGBT people lost (with the passage of Proposition 8).

Hmmm, that is now TWO achievements Barack Obama has been able (in two years) to do that "Big Dog" Bill Clinton could not get done in (8 years): health care reform AND the repeal of the disgraceful military ban on open military service by lesbians and gay men.

BREAKING: DADT and DREAM Act Cloture Votes SATURDAY!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid filed for cloture on both the DREAM Act and the stand-alone DADT Repeal bill for Saturday morning, The Advocate.reporter Kerry Eleveld  tweets. (Cloture is a procedural motion which kills a filibuster of it gets 60 votes).

It has been reported that DADT Repeal has at least 61 votes in favor in the U.S. Senate. The DREAM Act received 59 votes last Friday (DADT repeal got 57 votes) and, presumably Reid would not be bringing it up if he hadn't heard from at least one more Senator to support the measure which provides a path to citizenship for immigrants under the age of 30 who are undocumented because they were brought to this country when they were a minor and have been physically present in the United States for at least 5 years.

The U.S. House has already passed both the Dream Act (216-198) and the DADT repeal bill (250-175).

Let's hope the Senate can finally get its act together and pass something progressive for a change, enact legislation which helps the less powerful instead of giving aid and comfort to the affluent.

DREAM Act Up For Vote Today

The DREAM Act is going to be voted on today in the Senate. It needs 60 votes to survive a filibuster from Republicans. Call your Senators to tell them to vote YES on S. 3992 (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2010)

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill With LGBT Provisions Introduced

For Immediate  Release                                                                                  Contact:  Steve Ralls
September 30, 2010                                                (202) 347-7007 / sralls@immigrationequality.org

Immigration Equality Action Fund Hails Introduction of LGBT-Inclusive Comprehensive Immigration Reform BillLegislation from Senator Robert Menendez Includes Uniting American Families Act

Washington, DC – The Immigration Equality Action Fund today hailed the introduction of a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the Senate, by Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), which includes the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), a measure to end discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender immigrant families. 

“The Immigration Equality Action Fund welcomes Senator Menendez’s inclusive legislation, and calls on Congress to pass comprehensive reform, and fix our broken immigration system, immediately,” said Rachel B. Tiven, the group’s executive director.  “This new bill includes numerous, positive developments for LGBT immigrants, including UAFA, the DREAM Act and a pathway to citizenship.  All three components are important to ensuring that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender immigrants are able to contribute fully to our country while keeping their families together. The LGBT community must press for the passage of Senator Menendez’s bill, and call on our allies in Congress to support the legislation.  This legislation will finally end the obstacles so many families – both gay and straight – struggle with every day.”

Under current immigration law, lesbian and gay Americans are unable to sponsor their foreign-born partners for residency in the United States.  As a result, LGBT binational couples are forced apart, or into exile, by discriminatory immigration laws.  UAFA – sponsored in the Senate by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and in the House by Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) – would eliminate that double standard, and apply immigration laws equally to LGBT Americans, and their partners. UAFA is currently co-sponsored by 161 lawmakers in both chambers of Congress.

“It is simply unconscionable that our immigration laws tear families apart,” Tiven concluded.  “Senator Menendez’s legislation, which is a truly comprehensive bill, would provide LGBT families with important opportunities to keep their families together.  The bill’s introduction is welcome news not just for lesbian and gay Americans, but also their extended families, their communities and our country.  The Immigration Equality Action Fund is committed to working for its passage.”

# # #

Immigration Equality Action Fund advocates on Capitol Hill for equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and HIV-positive immigrants and their families. To end discrimination in U.S. immigration law, Immigration Equality Action Fund works to pass the Uniting American Families Act and LGBT-inclusive Comprehensive Immigration Reform. The Action Fund lobbies legislators and other policy makers, builds coalitions, and empowers LGBT immigrant families around the country to fight for change.

LGBT DREAM Act Event at LA Gay & Lesbian Center This Sun

This Sunday I will be attending an event called Standing with the Students: Out, Proud and Undocumented at the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center. It is a fundraiser to support LGBT students who would be impacted by the DREAM Act, which is scheduled for a vote in the United States Senate next week, as an attachment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2010, the same legislation that will include DADT repeal language.

I'm on the Host Committee (and member of the board of directors of Immigration Equality Action Fund). The event's goal is to raise at least $5,000 for scholarships for LGBT undocumented students attending UCLA. U.S. Representative Judy Chu is the featured guest.

Iranian Gay Immigration Activist Risks Deportation And Execution

Meet Mohammed Abdollahi, a 24-year-old gay man of Iranian descent who is also an undocumented immigrant who has been advocating for quick passage of the DREAM act (which would legalize the status of undocumented young people who either enlist in the military or attend college), and now faces deportation to Iran, where openly gay men are often executed.

Now, that is what I call putting your life on the line for a cause.

Schooling Fools: Race, LGBT Rights and Immigration

MadProfessah friend Hans Johnson has written an interesting piece in the Huffington Post which connects the dots between anti-gay purges of the past and the current anti-immigrant legislation coming out of Arizona. In it, he says:

The past is not the only guide toward greater solidarity with immigrants. One would think an entire decade of antigay ballot measures that played on stigma and bigotry to ban recognition of same-sex partners' freedom to marry would make the gay community staunch foes of anti-immigrant bias and its deployment in state law. That is mostly the case, in part because thousands of LGBT people are themselves immigrants or have partners or family members who must navigate the exploitation, suspicion, ignorance, and outright hate that greets immigrants, undocumented and otherwise.

Yet gay people are not immune from fecklessness in the face of anti-immigrant rhetoric and policy-making. In a well-publicized essay from 2006, lesbian commentator Jasmyne Cannick from Los Angeles all but told immigrants then denouncing a hostile bill in Congress and demanding reform that provides a path to legal citizenship, to wait in line behind the native-born. "It's a slap in the face to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people to take up the debate on whether or not to give people who are in this country illegally any rights when we haven't even given the people who are here legally all of their rights," Cannick wrote.

Whether callousness or merely lack of foresight, one chilling consequence of what Cannick voiced came to life just two years later in the outcome of California's voting on Proposition 8, which eliminated access to civil marriage for same-sex couples. Many California immigrants, Latino and otherwise, ignored gay people's pleas for justice and against being singled out by the policy-making process and voted to add Prop 8 to the state constitution. Thanks to that ballot measure, it is now embedded there. The lesson may be clear in retrospect. Turning away from unfairness, and spurning a chance for coalition, can cause reciprocal injury.

It's pretty amazing that any disenfranchised group would tell another "the line to get equal rights starts behind me" but that's arguably what the short-sighted Cannick was saying (and Johnson was laudably calling her out on).

Cannick's pieces have appeared at the Black politics blog Jack and Jill Politics, but happily there are people there who see understand the importance of solidarity and coalition building. In "What Part of ‘If You Ain’t White’, don’t you understand?" rikyrah points out this disturbing response to Arizona's recent xenophobic actions:

Nearly two-thirds of Americans back Arizona’s new anti-illegal immigration law, which makes it a state crime for a person to be in the country illegally. The law also requires local and state law enforcement officials to question people about their immigration status if they suspect they’re in the country illegally.

Sixty-four percent favor this law, while 34 percent oppose it. But those numbers are essentially reversed among Latinos — with 70 percent of them opposing the law, and only 27 percent supporting it.

Even though almost two-thirds of the public supports Arizona’s law, nearly an identical number (66 percent) believe it will lead to the discrimination of Latino immigrants who reside in the U.S. legally.

The point here is that Americans are willing to support a law which they admit will discriminate against some people, because they don't think that law will impact them. rikyrah also points out the direct correlation between Arizona's SB 1070 and its explicit legalization of racial profiling:

There’s a Black person, more likely, a Black Man, racially profiled EVERY DAY in this country.

The only way that we’ve remotely been able to fight this, is because it was ILLEGAL.

Now, if this happens when it’s ILLEGAL, what do you think is going to happen if they make it LEGAL?

Well, I’m not willing to find out.

IS there a Black person out there that thinks that doesn’t recognize THAT WE ARE NEXT ON THE LIST?

Please point to me something in the history of Black folk and Law Enforcement in America that could make me conclude anything OTHER than this?

So, it’s opposition to SB1070 for the selfish reason of SELF-PRESERVATION for me

So, to summarize, there are clear reasons why LGBT people should support immigration reform and oppose anti-immigrant legislation (especially if we expect immigrants and non-gay people to oppose anti-gay legislation) and there are clear reasons why Black people should be interested in promoting immigration legislation and opposing xenophobic public policy (anti-immigrant furors are always based in race, and will not remain targeted at non-Black racial groups for long).

You'd think someone who is Black and gay wouldn't need to learn these lessons in 2010 but, happily, there are several people, including yours truly who are prepared to school fools on the greater good.