The Immigration Bill’s Poisonous Gay Amendments

U.S. Senators have submitted their 301 amendments to the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, with Republican Sen. Grassley responsible for 77, a quarter of the entire lot. Sen. Sessions comes in second with 49 amendments. Among the Democrats, who authored a third of the amendments, Mazie Hirono has the most, 24.

The Senate Judiciary Committee begins the amendment process Thursday. It will be interesting to see which amendments make the cut and how the measure will look after weeks of what will no doubt be spirited hearings.

LGBT advocates and their allies will be anxiously monitoring two proposals from Sen. Leahy. The amendments seek to rectify the immigration measure which currently excludes lesbian and gay binational couples. GOP senators and conservative activists have warned that inclusion of such couples would be a “poison pill” which would kill the legislation.

The purpose of Leahy’s first pro-LGBT submission is “to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate discrimination in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner as spouses of citizens and lawful permanent residents.” In short, to treat permanent partnerships the same as marriages for immigration purposes.

Leahy’s second proposal seeks “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.”

Neither amendment uses the words lesbian, gay, or homosexual. Everyone knows, however, that these changes have to do with same-gender couples. I have said elsewhere that I believe lesbian and gay couples will be left out of immigration reform. Not because I think we should. My husband and I are among the thousands of couples that would benefit. I say so because of the political realities of Washington.

You can watch the HuffPost Live segment where I join the discussion about the immigration bill and gay binational couples here.

LGBT Groups Fight for Inclusion in Immigration Reform

May 2, 2103; The Advocate

This week, senators will be offering amendments to the immigration bill crafted by eight of their colleagues. Advocates have been working overtime on lawmakers to make sure that changes in the measure reflect their interests. LGBT groups have been among the most vocal, protesting the exclusion of same-gender bi-national couples and insisting that any bill voted on by the full chamber include LGBT immigrant families.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has indicated that he would offer an amendment allowing gay Americans to sponsor their foreign-born spouses and partners for green cards, a privilege enjoyed by straight Americans. Republican senators have warned that such a move would be a “poison pill” which would kill any immigration bill. “It will virtually guarantee that it won’t pass,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) told POLITICO. “This issue is a difficult enough issue as it is. I respect everyone’s views on it. But ultimately, if that issue is injected into this bill, the bill will fail and the coalition that helped put it together will fall apart.”

Religious fundamentalists and other conservatives have weighed in, threatening to withdraw support if immigration reform were inclusive. “We strongly would oppose the provision and it could force us to reconsider our support for the bill,” said Kevin Appleby, director of the Catholic Bishops’ Office of Migration and Public Affairs.

LGBT advocates are calling that bluff. “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,” reads a joint statement from the National Center for Lesbian Rights, GLAAD, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, United We Dream, and the Queer Undocumented Immigrant Project. “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.”

The president, who has chosen to let Congress take the lead in forging immigration legislation, has hedged on the matter. While he continues to assure LGBT and other progressive groups that he supports the inclusion of gay bi-national couples, he has also made it crystal clear that he will sign compromise legislation that will leave some sectors disgruntled. “I can tell you I think that this provision is the right thing to do,” he said. “I can also tell you I’m not going to get everything I want in this bill. Republicans are not going to get everything that they want in this bill.”

President Obama is spot on in that not everyone will be happy. Should a final bill pass, it is very possible that gay bi-national couples will not be part of it. Fact is, compromises are made and deals brokered whenever legislation is crafted. Moreover, some constituencies are more valuable than others. In this situation, the LGBT lobby will not prevail as there are far more important players to please and the “greater good” to consider.

Originally posted on Nonprofit Quarterly Nonprofit Newswire.

Breaking Down the Gang of Eight’s Immigration Bill

The Senate’s “Gang of Eight” released details of its immigration reform legislation last week, so the Urban Institute updated its earlier infographic comparing the White House’s immigration blueprint to the Senate bill.

The president and the senators are, for the most part, in sync. But differences over a few key provisions have advocates from all corners expressing concern for their constituencies, promising an intense debate moving forward. As could be expected from some quarters, immigration reform was insinuated into the Boston terror attack.

The President prioritizes an immediate path to citizenship, while the Senate focuses first on secure borders and successful enforcement. Under both plans, it will take eligible immigrants about the same amount of time — at least 13 years — to become U.S. citizens. The Senate bill cuts the number of family visas and repeals diversity visa programs, both of which are of grave concern to immigrant advocates. The president’s blueprint includes LGBT families, while the Senate’s bill purposely leaves them out.

The immigration bill is far from perfect and the House of Representatives should be offering their own legislation shortly. We can expect various groups lobbying hard to ensure that the final bill, should there be one, covers their interests. We can also expect the Gang of Eight to fight hard for what the president has characterized as a compromise effort. Sen. Rubio, in particular, has come out swinging. His presidential ambitions, after all, are at stake.

Originally posted on the Huffington Post.

Immigration Legislation Takes Shape

The Senate’s “Gang of Eight” released details of its immigration reform legislation Tuesday, so we have updated our earlier infographic comparing the White House’s immigration blueprint to the Senate bill.

The president and the senators are, for the most part, in sync. But differences over a few key provisions will have advocates from all corners lobbying for their constituencies and will make for an interesting debate moving forward.

The President prioritizes an immediate path to citizenship, while the Senate focuses first on secure borders and successful enforcement. Under both plans, it will take eligible immigrants the same amount of time—at least 13 years—to become U.S. citizens. The Senate bill cuts the number of family visas, which is of grave concern to immigrant advocates.  It also repeals diversity visa programs. The President’s proposal includes LGBT families, while the Senate’s bill purposely leaves them out.

The House of Representatives should offer their own bill shortly. It will most likely have the same contours.

Originally posted on Urban Institute’s MetroTrends Blog.

No Surprise, Gays Left Out of Immigration Reform Bill

(Photo: Flickr/mdfriendofhillary)

The Senate Gang of Eight has finally released its much-awaited immigration legislation. The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 is characterized by President Obama as a compromise bill which is largely consistent with his own principles for immigration reform.

The proposed law further fortifies our southern border and bolsters law enforcement, provides a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, creates guest worker programs for low-skilled and agricultural workers, increases the number of employment visas, and eliminates employment and family visa backlogs. It also cuts and limits the number of family visas and repeals diversity visa programs while creating a merit-based visa system based on education, employment, and length of residence in the U.S.

The comprehensive bill excludes LGBT families. Lesbian and gay Americans and permanent residents will still not be able to sponsor their loved ones for permanent residency.

The exclusion of families like mine comes as no surprise. I have been in Washington, D.C. long enough to know that compromises are made and deals brokered when crafting legislation. I am also aware that some constituencies are more influential than others. In order to get bipartisan buy-in, both sides had to give some. The Democratic senators decided that tens of thousands of LGBT families are dispensable. While the LGBT community has sway with Democrats, it was not enough in this battle. There are far more important players to please and the “greater good” to consider.

How do I feel? Angry, certainly. Resigned, mostly. This is how our democracy works. In the coming months, various interest groups and their champions will lobby Congress to make sure that they get something in the final immigration reform package. LGBT organizations and coalition partners will vigorously protest the exclusion of lesbian and gay binational couples. But at the end of the day, we will still be left out in the cold. And President Obama, who includes us in his own reform blueprint, will sign a comprehensive – but not inclusive – immigration law. And, I will be rational, saying to myself that this is a good thing.

Originally posted on Feet in 2 Worlds and the Huffington Post.

The Cost of Being Gay and Married

With my husband at the Supreme Court rally for marriage equality.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in two landmark gay rights cases. At issue in Hollingsworth v. Perry is the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 banning same-gender marriage, while in United States v. Windsor, at issue is whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law for all citizens.

DOMA’s Section 3 limits marriages to those between a woman and a man. This means that legally married lesbians and gays are denied the 1,138 federal benefits, rights, and privileges enjoyed by married couples who happen to be of different genders. To date, marriage equality has been achieved in Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington, the Coquille Tribe (Oregon), the Suquamish Tribe (Washington), and the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians (Michigan), but legally married lesbian and gay couples in these states and jurisdictions are not treated equally under federal law.

In 2009, the Tax Policy Center and the Williams Institute held a panel discussion called “The Higher Cost of Being Gay: Life, Death, and Taxes.” As Howard Gleckman wrote,

when it comes to federal taxes the question is not whether you are gay or straight, but whether or not you are married. Depending on the relative income of each spouse, married couples either enjoy a marriage bonus or suffer a marriage penalty. Of course, heterosexuals can choose to marry or not and live with the tax consequences. Gays and lesbians have no such option. Even though a handful of states now recognize gay marriage, for federal tax purposes their marital status is irrelevant.

In short, it costs to be born and married gay. And it’s not just the tax code. My husband and I, for instance, are denied Social Security, inheritance (i.e., estate tax and retirement savings), and health care benefits taken for granted by our straight counterparts. A few years back, the New York Times estimated the lifetime penalty for a gay couple. In the best case scenario, it would be about $30,000. In the worst case, well over $200,000. Moreover, my American spouse is unable to sponsor me, a foreign-born individual, for immigration purposes.

The list goes on but at the end of the day, what is being argued before the Supreme Court is whether all citizens should be treated equally and have the freedom to marry whom they love.

An abridged version is posted on Urban Institute’s MetroTrends blog.

The Value of Family Visas

In the 1960s, my uncle settled down in Neshoba County, Mississippi, a very distant and vastly different place from our native Philippines, where he became the physician of Blacks, Choctaws, and the few Whites who came to trust the “Chinaman.” As soon as he was able, he applied for visas for his siblings and parents. In the mid-seventies, my grandparents, titas (aunts), and tito (uncle) came to the U.S. They provided much comfort to their eldest brother who was finally able to speak in Ilonggo again and enjoy dishes he had not tasted in years. My titas and tito eventually found their own way to Chicago and California where they thrived in their professions and started their own families. My lola (grandmother) became the trusted caregiver of my cousins, traveling whenever and wherever she was needed.

If some lawmakers have their way however, immigrants, under immigration reform, would no longer be able to sponsor their siblings, just their spouses and children. Under our current immigration system, a good majority of legal immigrants arrive with family visas and only a fraction come with employment visas. Republicans want it the other way around, arguing that replacing family visas with employment visas for high-skilled workers would strengthen our economy.

These politicians need to realize however that pamilya is very important to Filipinos and other Asian Americans, our fastest growing racial/ethnic group, just as it is to Latino Americans, our largest community of color. Do Democrats want to lose the strong support of these communities? Do Republicans want to continue alienating them? And, if the idea is to attract the world’s best and brightest, do lawmakers really believe that these desirable immigrants will come knowing that they will not be able to send for their sisters and brothers?

We also need to remember that immigrants who arrive with family visas eventually contribute to our economy as producers, consumers, and taxpayers. They not only produce as wage earners and entrepreneurs, but as unpaid labor as well. An Urban Institute report I wrote outlines how unpaid work, especially caregiving and household production, adds to our overall productivity. Take my lola for example. By babysitting her grandchildren and tending house, she saved my titas and titos a considerable sum and freed them to go out and work. Multiply that by the number of other grandparents, aunties, and uncles who help out when they get here and you have a strong economic argument for family visas.

Deepa Iyer, executive director of South Asian Americans Leading Together, told the Washington Post that extended family members are the “people you need to build a support network. We’re talking about a U.S. citizen where the sister has a small business and wants to sponsor her brother who has the technical skills to help run that business. The fallacy is that folks think of immediate relatives not contributing to the economy. That’s not true.”

Moreover, members of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus argue that “eliminating these categories would produce only a small reduction in visas while creating greater hardship for thousands of U.S. citizens and their loved ones.”

Perhaps politicians who want to cut the number of family visas should take pause and think about the implications, not just for immigrants, but for our shared prosperity and progress.

Not All LGBT Immigrants Are Married to Americans

The inclusion of gay couples in comprehensive immigration reform legislation has turned into a highly contentious issue. The reality, however, is that there are more lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) immigrants than the estimated 32,300 individuals married to American citizens or legal permanent residents.

The Center for American Progress (CAP) reports that there are at least 267,000 undocumented adult immigrants who self-identify as LGBT. These individuals, because of their dual minority status as LGBT and as undocumented, are also among the nation’s most vulnerable, subject to employment, wage, and income disparities. They also face specific challenges when dealing with the immigration system.

The CAP report builds on the findings of the Williams Institute which profiles LGBT adult immigrants in the U.S. According to the institute’s research, in addition to the 2.7 percent of unauthorized adult immigrants who self-identify as LGBT, 2.4 percent of adult documented immigrants or 637,000 say they are LGBT. Gary J. Gates, the Williams Institute’s Distinguished Scholar, stressed at a CAP panel last week that these are conservative estimates and there could easily be more than 904,000 adult LGBT immigrants, both documented and undocumented. He also pointed out that about 11,700 lesbian and gay couples are both non-citizens, 58 percent of whom are raising over 12,000 children.

Jose Antonio Vargas, founder of Define American and undeniably the most high-profile undocumented immigrant in the U.S., also brought attention to queer undocumented youth who may not be counted among the 267,000 undocumented adults. Moreover, he highlighted the fact that many of the founders and leaders of the undocumented youth movement, the DREAMers, are LGBT themselves.

The CAP report argues that “passing an immigration reform bill with a direct road map to earned citizenship would lift these immigrants out of the shadows, treat them with the dignity they deserve, and enable them to become full and equal participants in our society, economy, and democracy.”

LGBT undocumented immigrants live in the shadows, marginalized by society’s bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity and immigration status. Shedding light on their numbers is a start in getting them out of the dark.

Originally posted on the Huffington Post.

Out of the Shadows: Counting Undocumented LGBT Immigrants

March 8, 2013; Source: Fox News Latino

The inclusion of gay couples in comprehensive immigration reform legislation has turned into a highly contentious issue. According to a new report from the Center for American Progress (CAP), there are at least 267,000 undocumented adult immigrants who self-identify as LGBT. These individuals, because of their dual minority status as LGBT and as undocumented, are also among the nation’s most vulnerable, subject to employment, wage, and income disparities. They also face specific challenges when dealing with the immigration system.

The CAP report builds on the findings of a Williams Institute report which profiles LGBT adult immigrants in the U.S. According to the Institute’s research, in addition to the 2.7 percent of unauthorized adult immigrants who self-identify as LGBT, 2.4 percent of adult documented immigrants (or 637,000 documented immigrants) say they are LGBT. At a CAP panel last week, Williams Institute Distinguished Scholar Gary J. Gates stressed that these are conservative estimates and that there could easily be more than 904,000 adult LGBT immigrants, both documented and undocumented. Gates added that there are approximately 11,700 lesbian and gay couples in which both are non-citizens, and of this group, 58 percent are raising children. That would equate to more than 12,000 children.

Jose Antonio Vargas, founder of Define American and undeniably the most high-profile undocumented immigrant in the U.S., also brought attention to queer undocumented youth who may not be counted among the 267,000 undocumented adults. Moreover, he highlighted the fact that many of the founders and leaders of the undocumented youth movement, otherwise known as the DREAMers, are LGBT themselves.

The CAP report argues that “passing an immigration reform bill with a direct road map to earned citizenship would lift these immigrants out of the shadows, treat them with the dignity they deserve, and enable them to become full and equal participants in our society, economy, and democracy.” LGBT undocumented immigrants live in the shadows, marginalized by society’s biases based on sexual orientation or gender identity and/or immigration status. Shedding light on their numbers is a start in getting them out of the dark. 

Originally posted on Nonprofit Quarterly Nonprofit Newswire.

Sequestration’s Toll on Immigrants and Our Shared Future

Two girls at the U.S.-Mexico Border crossing. Photo by Flickr user Bosquet, used under a Creative Commons License (cc-by-sa 2.0)

Here’s what the scaremongers think they know about sequestration and immigration: that hundreds of undocumented criminal aliens will be let loose and hundreds more will swarm through our unsecured borders, steal American jobs, and abuse our welfare system. Setting aside the facts that many being released from detention are guilty of only minor infractions, that net migration from Mexico is practically nonexistent, and that immigrants give more than they take, the vast majority of immigrants in the United States are legal permanent residents or naturalized citizens. These nearly 30 million people will certainly be set back by meat cleaver­–like sequestration cuts. And that should be of concern to all of us.

One federal program for which immigrants are eligible is Head Start, which offers competitive grants for comprehensive early childhood services for low-income children and families. Under sequestration, Head Start funds will be cut by as much as $622 million, which translates to over 96,000 fewer children served.

The automatic cuts to education, however, will have ripple effects throughout the economy. Children of immigrants are the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. population. According to an Urban Institute study, they account for nearly the entire growth in the country’s child population during the past two decades. As of 2010, one in four children in the United States lives in an immigrant family.

This considerable demographic shift will have major social, political, and economic implications for the country. In less than a decade, today’s immigrant children will make up a large proportion of new workers, taxpayers, and voters who will bear the responsibility of supporting aging baby boomers. It is crucial, then, to provide quality education for these children.

A functional and successful public education system can help secure economic and social parity for immigrant children and their families by giving students a solid foundation for higher education and subsequent gainful employment. This in turn can promote intergenerational mobility for immigrant groups. Ultimately, better mobility means a more productive economy and much-needed revenue for the government.

Poorly funded public schools can widen existing economic and social gaps between racial and ethnic groups and between haves and have-nots by denying disadvantaged students the educational foundation they need to progress. Educating immigrant children, however, is and will be daunting for public schools due to the schools’ diminished capacities and increased accountability burdens coupled with the linguistic and cultural challenges unique to immigrant students.

English proficiency is a significant barrier. Two in five immigrant children are English language learners, and three in four live in households where no one older than 13 speaks English proficiently. In addition, many immigrants have limited financial resources. Children in immigrant families make up close to a third of the nation’s poor children and a similar proportion of the nation’s low-income children. Five in ten immigrant children live in low-income families, compared with four in ten native-born children.

This tenuous situation will be exacerbated by cuts in discretionary spending for federal education programs. Title I grants to local education agencies—a cornerstone program designed to help all students, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, meet high academic standards—are to be slashed by a whopping $1.1 billion. This will leave 1.8 million fewer students served, among whom are hundreds of thousands of immigrant children. English language acquisition state grants, which help English language learners and recent immigrant students learn English and become proficient in academic content standards, are to be cut by over $57 million, resulting in over 350,000 fewer immigrant students assisted.

Coupled with state budget shortfalls (which can only worsen when the federal cuts kick in), sequestration will set immigrant children and their families further back. If so much of our future workforce falls behind now, all of us will face the consequences in the not-too-distant future.

Originally posted on Urban Institute’s MetroTrends Blog, the Huffington Post, and Feet in 2 Worlds.