A protest in favor of the DREAM Act. (Photo: Jobs with Justice/flickr)

The ARMS Act – the pared down version of the DREAM Act – does not make sense. By granting a path to citizenship only to those who sign up for the military, the bill precludes many undocumented youth who can contribute much to our economy and national well-being.

While it comes as no surprise that GOP lawmakers would support the measure suggested by Rep. Rivera (R-FL), it is stunning that some Democrats are actually considering the ARMS Act as a viable alternative to the DREAM Act.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, thinks the ARMS Act is “a step in the right direction.” Whitehouse told the Hill:

“If you are willing to accept that military service is the kind of bona fide that credentials a young person to take advantage of college benefits, I’d want to explore what other kinds of service might also qualify with them before I wrote off drawing the line there. I’ll do a bit more exploring but it’s a good start.”

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) still believes that the DREAM Act should be passed, but he is not ruling out a compromise.

“My belief is we should try to pass the whole DREAM Act. As for what compromise might come about, that’s down the road,” he said.

I don’t see why any lawmaker, Republican or Democrat, should even mull the ARMS Act when a majority of Americans support the DREAM Act—which, we ought to recall, passed the House in 2010.

Moreover, do Democrats wish to further erode Latino support?

Their party’s relationship with the Latino community is stressed as it is due to their inability to pass the DREAM Act and the Obama administration’s record number of deportations.

Thankfully, there are those who will put up a firewall against GOP attempts to water down the DREAM Act.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) thinks the ARMS Act is no more than “a deeply cynical ploy” to garner the support of Latino voters and  remains committed to a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrant youth through military service AND higher education.

Douglas Rivlin, Gutierrez’s Director of Communications, explained the Congressman’s position in detail:

The Congressman thinks a military-only DREAM Act is a non-starter.  It is simply a campaign gimmick to give Republicans someplace to stand in Florida, Nevada, Colorado and other states where there are Latino voters that softens their “I will veto the DREAM Act” absolutism in South Carolina, Iowa, and New Hampshire.  The Congressman sees it as pure politics and the legislation itself is irrelevant.  Other than — perhaps — the two remaining Representatives who voted for the DREAM Act when it passed in 2010, House Republicans are generally not interested in legalizing anyone under any circumstances, even if they have to get shot at first.

Democrats should see the ARMS Act for what it is and not compromise on the DREAM Act.

You can follow Erwin de Leon on Twitter or read his blog.

Feet in Two Worlds is supported by the New York Community Trust and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation with additional support from the Mertz Gilmore Foundation and the Sirus Fund.

Marine is sworn in as a U.S. Citizen. (NYC Marines/flickr)

Republican Rep. David Rivera proposed a bill late last week which would give undocumented youth a path to citizenship.

The Adjusted Residency for Military Service Act – the ARMS Act – is a pruned version of the DREAM Act. Immigrant youth who were brought into the United States illegally as children have the chance to change their status by attending college or joining the military under the DREAM Act. Rivera’s measure only allows undocumented youth the opportunity to legalize through enlisting in military service.

“If somebody is willing to die for America, then certainly they deserve a chance at life in America,” Rivera told the Miami Herald.

Both Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney support the ARMS Act.

“I think there is no opposition to that part of the DREAM Act,” Gingrich told a gathering of the Latin Builder’s Association Friday. “I think it should go through immediately.”

Undocumented youth, however, are not as enthusiastic about the ARMS Act.

Juan Escalante, a DREAM Act activist, says that “the ARMS Act is the GOP ‘dream’ of the Dream Act.”

“The ARMS Act is an opportunistic attempt, in my opinion, from the GOP trying to capitalize some DREAM Act momentum,” he said.

Escalante is not the only DREAMer who opposes the military-only version of the DREAM Act.

Colorlines reporter Julianne Hing wrote that undocumented youth ask, “why it is that the only way they can serve the country they’ve grown up in is by joining the military. Undocumented youth argue that they are fully capable of serving the country in many other ways.”

Escalante, who has no objections himself to the military component of the DREAM Act, said, “It seems foolish to me that you could only be granted relief by risking your life for this country. What are those doctors, lawyers, or politician scientists such as myself, going to do?”

“Better yet, is the United States ready to deport trained professionals or students who have benefited from the public education system funded by the taxpayers?” he asked.

Ali Noorani, Executive Director of the National Immigration Forum, released a statement characterizing the ARMS Act as “a distortion of the DREAM Act.” He argues that excluding legalization through higher education “would provide the wrong incentives for military enlistment during a time of war.” Some undocumented youth might sign up out of desperation and not because they are interested in military service.

Noorani also contends that “by denying immigrant students the right to higher education, America is losing out on their entrepreneurship, productivity and economic contributions.”

The ARMS Act does not make sense. It appears to be a thinly veiled GOP attempt to pander to military hawks while dangling a bittersweet fruit in front of Latino voters turned off by the immigration rhetoric spewed during the Republican presidential primaries.

There is something mercenary about the idea.

The fact of the matter is a majority of Americans support the full DREAM Act. In December 2010, the bill passed the House by a resounding vote of 216-198 but failed in the Senate by five votes.

There is nothing wrong with encouraging anyone to enlist with the military. If done voluntarily it is a noble act which should be applauded and held high as an example. But there is more than one way to serve your country.

Undocumented youth, if given the chance, would educate our children, heal our sick, strengthen our economy and yes, die for the country they consider their own.

You can follow Erwin de Leon on Twitter or read his blog.

Feet in Two Worlds is supported by the New York Community Trust and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation with additional support from the Mertz Gilmore Foundation and the Sirus Fund.

President Obama giving his 2012 State of the Union Address

President Obama once again called for comprehensive immigration reform during his State of the Union address Tuesday, stressing that his administration has done more on border enforcement than previous administrations.

I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration.  That’s why my administration has put more boots on the border than ever before.  That’s why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office.  The opponents of action are out of excuses.  We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now.

We should, but we’re not.

Obama recognizes, like most Americans, that “nothing will get done in Washington this year, or next year, or maybe even the year after that, because Washington is broken.” He knows that Congress will not pass an expansive bill which tackles all problems afflicting the country’s immigration system, especially one that includes a path to citizenship for millions of unauthorized immigrants. Not in this current Congress or the next.

He therefore proposed smaller steps, alluding to the DREAM Act which passed the House but failed in the Senate a little over a year ago.

But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, defend this country.  Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship.  I will sign it right away.

There is, after all, some sympathy for undocumented youth who were brought to the United States as children without their consent. Gallup reports that Americans generally favor rather than oppose the DREAM Act.

Obama’s State of the Union was largely a “dream” speech. The chances of comprehensive immigration reform happening is practically nil. Less ambitious bills that favor undocumented youth, high-skilled foreign workers, and agricultural laborers are a little more likely to pass, and the President would sign them.

Everyone agrees that the immigration system is broken but there is and will be no stomach for a major overhaul. Smaller pieces are more palatable and feasible.

The immigration system will change but true to its history and the messy reality of legislation, it will be through patchwork efforts.

You can follow Erwin de Leon on Twitter or read his blog.

Feet in Two Worlds is supported by the New York Community Trust and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation with additional support from the Mertz Gilmore Foundation and the Sirus Fund.

GOP candidate Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney is cementing his hardline stance on immigration.

He has touted the endorsement of Kris Kobach, Kansas’ Secretary of State who helped author the draconian immigration laws of Alabama and Arizona. He reiterated his unrelenting position on unauthorized immigrants and DREAMers—young people who stand to benefit from the DREAM Act—at the GOP presidential debate Monday.

“I absolutely believe that those who come here illegally should not be given favoritism or a special route to becoming permanent residents or citizens that’s not given to those people who have stayed in line legally. I just think we have to follow the law, I think that’s the right course,” he said when asked by Fox News political analyst Juan Williams whether he was alienating Latino voters. Romney did say “I love legal immigration.”

“I would veto the DREAM Act, if provisions included in that act say that people who are here illegally, if they go to school here long enough, get a degree here that they can become permanent residents,” Romney added after applause from the audience.

“I think that’s a mistake. I think we have to follow the law and insist those who come here illegally, ultimately return home, apply, and get in line with everyone else.”

He ended by stressing that “to protect our legal immigration system we have got to protect our borders and stop the flood of illegal immigration and I will not do anything that opens up another wave of illegal immigration.”

It won’t help Romney win Hispanic votes. Somos Republicans, the largest Hispanic republican group which says it has 6,000 members, endorsed Newt Gingrich this week, the one candidate who supports a limited path to residency for some undocumented immigrants.

Who is Romney even trying to appeal to? According to the latest Gallup poll, only three percent of Americans say immigration is the most important problem facing the country today, reported Jon Clifton, Gallup Social and Economic Analysis deputy director at an immigration symposium in Washington, D.C. Tuesday.

Clifton said that based on Gallup’s latest findings, lingering unemployment, the federal budget and continuing economic malaise are more worrisome to Americans than the perceived scourge of unauthorized immigration trumpeted by some on the far right.

Its true that almost two thirds of those polled say they are “dissatisfied” about the level of immigration to the U.S. Simon Rosenberg, president and founder of NDN, a think tank and advocacy organization, believes that immigration will be an issue in the upcoming Presidential elections because it is a hot button topic, especially in key southwestern states that will be contested in November. Clearly, Romney is placing his bets that reaching anti-immigration voters in those states is more important than the Hispanic voters who live in them.

Rosenberg, another panelist at Tuesday’s symposium, said that immigration is at a deeper level a “surrogate for growing diversification of society.” It is “about race, culture and how we are changing.”

He believes that with the election of an African American president, “the country has passed on to a new place in race,” but he contends that “we have not digested it yet as a country.”

Mitt Romney, rather than helping us process these seismic social and cultural shifts is calcifying the toxic immigration debate by insisting on an uncompromising position, a stance not taken by previous Republican presidents and candidates.

Ronald Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 which legalized the status of millions of unauthorized immigrants. President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain supported comprehensive immigration reform that included border enforcement and a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants.

If Romney’s braggadocio proves to be real, then he will be presenting a very different Republican Party from that of Reagan or Bush. Is pandering to anti-immigrant sentiment the direction the Republican party, and this country, should be going?

You can follow Erwin de Leon on Twitter or read his blog.

Feet in Two Worlds is supported by the New York Community Trust and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation with additional support from the Mertz Gilmore Foundation and the Sirus Fund.

A volunteer for the 2008 Obama campaign. (Photo: Amburn Everett/flickr)

Michael Dompas, an Indonesian native who has just been sent overseas by his employer, plans to return this fall to help with President Obama’s reelection campaign.

“I’m allowed to do this,” he explained. “I was so frustrated by the Supreme Court’s decision over the results of the 2000 presidential elections that I just had to do something. I wanted to give money and volunteer. So I consulted a friend who at that time worked for the Federal Elections Committee.”

His friend told him that as a legal permanent resident (a Green Card holder) Dompas can give money and volunteer for political campaigns.

Since then, the Indonesian banker canvassed for Tim Kaine during his 2001 run for lieutenant governor of Virginia and manned the phones for presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004. In 2008, Dompas took two weeks off from work to campaign for then Senator Obama.

The outcome of November’s elections will not only affect the lives of native-born Americans but immigrants as well. For that reason some foreign-born individuals are doing what they can to get the candidate they believe has their best interest in mind elected.

Yet the Federal Elections Commission bans foreign nationals from “contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly.”

Foreign nationals include those who are not legal permanent residents or do not have Green Cards such as students, business travelers, temporary workers, and tourists. The commission also prohibits foreign governments, political parties, corporations, associations and partnerships from intervening in U.S. elections.

In October 2010, two foreign nationals who live and work lawfully in the United States filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the constitutionality of this prohibition.

Benjamin Bluman and Asenath Steiman argued that the ban violated the First Amendment and since they are here legally, their freedom of speech was also protected.

Bluman, a Canadian and self-described ”passionate” Democratic supporter, wanted to donate to the 2008 Obama campaign. Steiman, who holds dual Canadian and Israeli citizenship, wanted to contribute to Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, the party’s National Senatorial Committee, and the Club for Growth.

The District Court dismissed Bluman and Steiman’s challenge last August and the Supreme Court issued an order Monday upholding the statute against foreigners making financial contributions.

Adolfo Franco, a Republican strategist who was an advisor to John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, clarifies that anyone who is in the United States, with or without a green card, can volunteer for political campaigns so long as they do not make financial contributions, make in-kind donations, or are compensated for services they render.

“Freedom of expression applies to everyone,” he said.

Franco adds that the Republican National Committee doesn’t encourage or discourage legal immigrants from volunteering.

“We do not draw a distinction between U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents,” he said. There is “no vetting process for people who walk in the door to volunteer.”

Indeed, the RNC’s website does not mention anything about who can volunteer but does check the eligibility of anyone who donates.

Dompas shared that though he is not a naturalized citizen he gets involved “because I live here and the policies and decisions made by elected officials affect my life.”

He supports the Democratic Party because he says its core values are aligned with his own. “They care about the individual, about social welfare, which in the long run can only improve society,” he said. “They fight for social justice which is important to me as a Catholic.”

Franco believes, however, that immigrants will likely fare better under a Republican administration. In particular, he argues that immigration reform stands a better chance with the GOP.

“Comprehensive immigration reform will become law but only with a Republican president,” he asserted, “because most Americans would trust Republicans with immigration just as they would feel more comfortable with Democratic leadership on issues such as Social Security and Medicare. A lot of Americans think the Democratic Party is soft on the border security and illegal immigration issue and that Democrats are not really serious about tackling the illegal issue or adequate border security.”

Dompas, on the other hand, believes that immigrants will be better off with a Democrat in the White House and said he will do everything he can to help Mr. Obama keep his job.

Dompas is justified in wanting to get involved in a campaign, as are Bluman and Steiman, as are all people living in the U.S.—citizens and non-ctizens alike—because we are all affected by the policy decisions and rhetoric of our elected officials.

But the prohibition on foreign nationals influencing, and in particular, financially contributing, to U.S. elections is sound. We want people who are truly invested in the welfare of the United States, and who identify as Americans, determining its future through the electoral process.

Arguably, there are foreign nationals who want nothing more than to be U.S. citizens or at least have a green card but currently have no visible path to citizenship. These are the unauthorized immigrants who have planted their roots with American children, jobs and homes in communities across the country. People who have lived here for decades and know no other home, and who want to contribute fully to this country.

The question then for immigrants and their advocates is which party will give them the best chance to legalize their status and earn a voice, and a vote, in our democracy.

You can follow Erwin de Leon on Twitter or read his blog.

Feet in Two Worlds is supported by the New York Community Trust and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation with additional support from the Mertz Gilmore Foundation and the Sirus Fund. 

More states now require employers to use E-Verify to check work authorization status of new hires. (Photo: windley/flickr)

New state immigration laws took effect this week. These include Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee statutes which require employers to confirm that new hires have work authorization through E-Verify, a federal database that crosschecks employee information against the records of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration. Opponents of E-Verify say it burdens immigrants because the database is prone to error.

In this election year, laws in Kansas, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas will require all voters to present photo IDs come November.  Some of these laws are directly connected to the fear that non-citizen immigrants will vote in elections. A Tennessee statute will require election officials to compare the Voter Registration database with the Department of Safety database to ensure non-U.S. citizens aren’t registered to vote. If the database crosscheck reveals any discrepancies, these individuals must show citizenship papers.

On the other hand, California stands out in having a number of new laws which benefit the immigrant community.

California took the opposite stance of many states and made it illegal for municipalities to mandate that companies use E-Verify unless required by federal law.

AB 176 requires test sponsors of graduate exams such as GRE, LSAT, MCAT and GMAT to provide alternative methods for verifying a test taker’s identity. Newcomers who have yet to acquire driver’s licenses or other traditional forms of identification stand to benefit from this ordinance.

SB 126 makes it easier for farm workers, who are predominantly immigrants, to join unions and advocate for labor rights. Employers are prohibited from engaging in unfair labor practices such as preventing farm workers from holding a secret ballot election.

AB 353 prohibits impounding the vehicles of those stopped at sobriety checkpoints and found to be without a valid license.

SB 657 requires large retailers and manufacturers to inform consumers what steps have been taken to ensure that their supply chains are free from slavery and human trafficking which disproportionately victimizes immigrants.

The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that a wide range of laws in at least 21 states took effect on New Year’s Day. Many of these statutes affect the lives of the 37 million immigrants who call America home.

You can follow Erwin de Leon on Twitter or read his blog.

Feet in Two Worlds is supported by the New York Community Trust and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation with additional support from the Mertz Gilmore Foundation and the Sirus Fund.  

Dominique Strauss-Kahn. (Photo: Flickr)

The collapse of Nafissatou Diallo’s criminal charges against former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn may present a disturbing precedent, leading many to view asylum-seekers as unreliable court witnesses.

Diallo, a West African immigrant, is said to have serially lied about the circumstances of her 2003 application for asylum, and also about the details of her May 14, 2011 sexual encounter with Strauss-Kahn. For example, she allegedly lied about being gang-raped in her country, prompting her to flee and seek asylum in the U.S. As for the May 14 incident, she supposedly made inconsistent claims about when she reported the alleged sexual attack to her supervisor—immediately after it happened versus after she cleaned another room.

As a result, the Manhattan District Attorney’s office dropped the charges against Strauss-Kahn, citing Diallo’s “history of inconsistencies and lies.” DA Cyrus Vance Jr. said Diallo would not make a credible witness.

As we all know, Diallo is the hotel maid from Guinea who brought explosive charges of attempted rape against Strauss-Kahn, an influential world leader who some were hoping would be elected the next president of France. In their legal battle, it’s arguable that what Diallo reportedly lied about in her asylum application would have carried more weight than what actually happened in that hotel suite.

Asylum seekers who followed DSK vs. Diallo should be worried at the collapse of the criminal case (a civil suit remains pending). In the complicated, cutthroat process of obtaining asylum, bending the truth often becomes part of a legal maneuver. It’s not uncommon for female asylum seekers, for instance, to include rape in their applications. They believe, or are advised by their lawyers or friends, that the more threatening the circumstances the greater their chances of being accepted in the U.S. Many asylum-seekers represent themselves in immigration court, because they cannot afford a lawyer and are not guaranteed one by law. Some immigration lawyers maintain that the majority of stories they see on asylum applications have “inconsistencies.”

Not to excuse the practice, but if that’s true, it’s worth asking, should asylum applications even be allowed as court documents?

Application for asylum is one of the thorniest avenues in the complicated immigration process. The U.S. government is conflicted about returning a person to a place where his or her life would be threatened, so applicants are allowed to plead their case in front of an immigration judge. This process often lasts as long as two years or more, pending appeals. In the meantime, applicants are allowed stay in the U.S. while their lawyers try to find ways they can legally work and potentially remain here permanently.

After 9/11, fears that terrorists would try to sneak into the country under the pretext of asylum prompted a tightening of the screws. There seems to be no established guidelines on who can be granted asylum, and immigration judges’ decisions have been described as inconsistent. In 2010, 21,113 people were granted political asylum in the U.S., reflecting a downward trend that started in 2008.

The difficulty of extracting an accurate and detailed testimony has long been recognized by humanitarian agencies working with asylum seekers. Some who flee under extreme stress suffer Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, which makes it difficult for them to recall many of the details of traumatic events. In some cases, it becomes difficult to speak clearly and coherently about what had happened.

“In the rush to leave their homeland…they often lack documents or witnesses to prove who they are, why they left home, or what dangers await them upon return. Usually, their own oral testimony is the only ‘proof’ they have. It thus is up to the decision-maker to determine whether this testimony is sufficiently detailed and believable to justify granting asylum,” according to the TRAC Immigration Primer on asylum law.

What the DA heard was Diallo’s story full of holes like swiss cheese, and he believed it wouldn’t stand up in court. Instead of getting an independent immigration judge to assess her credibility as a witness, the DA’s office unilaterally decided Diallo was an unreliable witness and dropped the suit.

But many questions remain unanswered: Did the DA’s office investigate if Diallo’s asylum application fell victim to legal mishandling? Are the inconsistencies in her testimony a result of repressed trauma or bad legal advice? Does Diallo vs. DSK set a precedent that no asylum seeker will be considered credible enough to win a rape case?

Inconsistencies in Diallo’s stories could very well signal a woman having trouble accessing the traumatic memories of her past —memories she’s being forced to recall but which she’d rather forget.

That could feel like being raped all over again.

A press conference in favor of the DREAM Act in California. (Photo: Antonio Villaraigosa/flickr)

2011 may be best remembered for a new type of political activism.  Movements including the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street were built on a combination of street protests and social media.  The year also saw an outpouring of activism and support for undocumented immigrant youth, especially those who would benefit from the DREAM Act—a proposed federal law that would create a path to legal status for undocumented young people.

Here’s what happened in 2011:

DREAMers (undocumented youth) and their allies responded to the narrow failure of the DREAM Act in Congress at the end of 2010 by launching demonstrations, organizing nationwide groups using social media, getting arrested in civil disobedience actions, lobbying Congress and fighting for state-level DREAM legislation. States can’t offer citizenship, so state efforts are mainly aimed at easing hardships for undocumented college students.  With Congress at an impasse over immigration reform, the movement decided to focus on individual states.

On March 10th, undocumented immigrant advocacy organizations launched National Coming Out of the Shadows day. In the months following this event hundreds of youth across the country revealed themselves as undocumented and participated in demonstrations and acts of civil disobedience in what many called a human rights campaign. Some undocumented youth were arrested while protesting—including six in Chicago, ten in North Carolina, five in Indiana, seven in Atlanta, and four in Arizona.  In all of these cases the students were charged with civil disobedience for either blocking traffic or staging a sit-in at a government office.

With an uncanny resemblance to last year’s “It Gets Better” gay rights campaign, many DREAMers came out publicly as undocumented in online videos, coining the phrase “undocumented and unafraid.”

The most high-profile revelation came from Jose Antonio Vargas, a former Washington Post and Huffington Post journalist who revealed his undocumented status in a New York Times Magazine article.  Other DREAMers revealed their immigration status at public rallies or by posting videos online. Several DREAMers shared their stories with Feet in Two Worlds on our YouTube channel and at a forum at The New School in New York.

Illinois and California passed state-level DREAM Acts that allow undocumented youth to pay in-state tuition at public colleges and obtain public and private scholarships, and New York Senator Bill Perkins introduced the New York DREAM Act, with help from the New York State Youth Leadership Council (NYSYLC).

Despite these efforts, and the Obama administration’s declaration that it would exercise “prosecutorial discretion” and focus on deporting high level criminals, several DREAMers narrowly evaded deportation this year.  Nadia Habib, a 19-year-old college student originally from Bangladesh, and her mother Nazmin were almost deported in September. They were permitted to stay, but their case is still under review. Matias Ramos, an Argentine immigrant and UCLA graduate, was also recently granted a temporary stay moments before being deported.

While some states passed DREAM legislation, others sharpened their focus against undocumented immigrant.  In June, Alabama passed HB58— the nation’s toughest law against undocumented immigrants and those who help them. On the federal level  396,906 individuals were deported in 2011.  Secure Communities, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) immigrant identification program, is now active in 44 states.

Young undocumented immigrants show no signs of slowing down their activism in 2012. Their need for the DREAM Act is stronger than ever, but in a presidential election year where immigration is an issue on which no candidate wants to appear “soft”, the DREAM Act battle will likely continue to be waged in individual states.

Von Diaz is a Feet in Two Worlds journalist.  She has also worked as a consultant to Define American, the organization created by Jose Antonio Vargas.

Monica Alcota and Cristina Ojeda, a binational gay couple in New York. (Photo: Maria Watts)

This post originally appeared on the Huffington Post Gay Voices blog.

The holidays are meant to be a time of merriment and family, but they are disappointing, even depressing, for some.

This time of the year can be especially difficult for immigrants who are separated from dear ones overseas. Many seek the company of compatriots to recreate festivities and meals that evoke their countries of origin. Often they turn to ethnic congregations for services consistent with their values and traditions.

Queer immigrants, like any other newcomer, can find the holidays tough. But it can be doubly hard for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender immigrants, as they feel left out not only by the mainstream but by their own families and ethnic communities which tend to be conservative and unwelcoming of openly LGBT individuals.

“My blood family and I had a contentious relationship due to my political involvement teamed with my sexuality and gender identity,” said K, who identifies as queer, transgender and of Philippine descent.

“Due to this, I was kicked out, homeless and estranged as a young person from my blood family. This has incited displacement, a painful sense of mobility and an instability that show itself during holiday time,” K added.

Tania, a community organizer at the Immigrant Youth Justice League and coordinator for the LGBTQ Immigrant Rights Project at the Association of Latino Men for Action, says her family has come around. They are more comfortable with her being out and she is able to bring her partner home for the holidays.

She nonetheless feels a great loss at this time of the year.

Tania is undocumented. Her parents brought their family over from Mexico 18 years ago when she was only ten years old.

“That’s really an important part of my identity because it’s something that has been true for me for most of my life,” she said, about living without papers. “It’s something that has affected every aspect of how I live.”

“It’s really difficult to listen to people’s plans of traveling at this time to a country where I can’t go even if I wish I could,” she admitted.

She sorely misses her extended family and laments the fading ties.

“I’ve lost touch with my family in Mexico, my cousins, my grandparents,” she said. “When I talk about Christmas and New Years and Three Kings Day as being family time, it really has only been my immediate family, my mom, my sister, my dad and myself, plus the few friends and chosen family that have also gathered around us, both from the LGBT community and the immigrant undocumented community.”

Many queer immigrants spend the holidays with “chosen families,” usually others who share their gender orientation and identity as well as their struggles in America.

Pia, a student and activist in San Francisco, celebrates the holidays with both her blood and chosen families. She admits that while her extended family does not object to her bringing a partner, she still feels invisible.

“My blood family never talks about my identity and sexuality openly, but they’ve all welcomed my former partners,” she said.

“At the same time, conversations regarding relationships – living together, how the relationship is going, “are you happy?” check-ins, marriage, or in my case, domestic partnership – are never afforded to me, the way they are so casually discussed with straight family members and their partners. While there is acceptance, there isn’t a genuine acknowledgement of my identity I feel like – even after they’ve seen me with a former partner for over three years and have considered that person a family member.”

Queer immigrants nonetheless do the best they can to commemorate the holidays.

K puts “great effort in being thankful for my shelter and home, having access to food, the people who love me and the communities who create joy with everyday social change. These activities are embraced with people who are my family in ways that have nothing to do with blood ties.”

You can follow Erwin de Leon on Twitter or read his blog.

Feet in Two Worlds is supported by the New York Community Trust and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation with additional support from the Mertz Gilmore Foundation and the Sirus Fund.  Feet in Two Worlds podcasts are supported in part by WNYC, New York Public Radio.

A paycheck for zero dollars. (Photo: Jima/flickr)

Stalled in Congress is a bill which extends the payroll tax cut for two months, thanks to the intransigence of a handful of House GOP freshmen.  If the measure is not passed by the end of the year, 160 million of us will see our paychecks cut by an average of $40. Those among us who access Medicare and unemployment benefits will also suffer greatly.

Among the millions who will have less money to survive on are Latinos and other immigrants who are here legally or are naturalized citizens.  Many will be voting come November and rest assured, they will have immigration and bread and butter issues on their minds.

Latinos are the poorest according to the Census’ Supplemental Poverty Measure. Over six million Latino children, more than any other group, are living in poverty.  The net worth of Latino families shrank the most during the Great Recession. The payroll tax cut, which may seem paltry to wealthy lawmakers, makes a huge difference to struggling families.

Rational conservatives are lambasting their mulish comrades. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board warns that if this impasse is not breached, Republicans might as well gird themselves for a second Obama term. Even some GOP senators who fear losing their seats next November have spoken out against their counterparts in the lower chamber.

If they’d like a chance of winning any Latino votes in 2012, House Republicans should heed these warnings.

More than 6.6 million Latinos – about seven percent of all voters – voted in last year’s midterm elections. Many more are expected to turn out for next year’s presidential and general elections. Who do you think they will vote for?

You can follow Erwin de Leon on Twitter or read his blog.

Feet in Two Worlds is supported by the New York Community Trust and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation with additional support from the Mertz Gilmore Foundation and the Sirus Fund.  Feet in Two Worlds podcasts are supported in part by WNYC, New York Public Radio.