Trump Administration to Deny Visas to Same-Sex Partners of Diplomats, U.N. Offic

[itsApril]

Trump Administration to Deny Visas to Same-Sex Partners of Diplomats, U.N. Officials

BY COLUM LYNCH
OCTOBER 1, 2018, 6:36 PM
FOREIGN POLICY

https😕/foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/01/trump-administration-to-deny-visas-to-same-sex-partners-of-diplomats-un-officials-gay-lgbt/

"The Trump administration on Monday began denying visas to same-sex domestic partners of foreign diplomats and United Nations employees, and requiring those already in the United States to get married by the end of the year or leave the country.

* * *

" . . . critics says the new policy will impose undue hardships on foreign couples from countries that criminalize same-sex marriages.

"Samantha Power, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, denounced the new policy on Twitter as 'needlessly cruel & bigoted.'

"'State Dept. will no longer let same-sex domestic partners of UN employees get visas unless they are married,' she tweeted, noting that 'only 12% of UN member states allow same-sex marriage.'"

___
So U.S. policy on LGBT issues continues to develop . . . BACKWARDS.

[warlockmaker]

This is normal visa procedure now that the USA recognizes same sex marriage. The dependent visa was offered before same sex marriage became legal. CIS couples not married have never been granted dependent visas. This is a normal visa requirement and should not be used to advance political agendas.

[tgchar21]

This is a classic case of: Do you have a facially neutral policy that may disparately impact certain groups, or do you create exemptions that although designed to help groups that are discriminated against may be seen as unfair to others who may be affected although in a less adverse manner? An analogous comparison would be back before same-sex marriage was universally recognized in the U.S. companies that allowed unmarried same-sex partners on their health insurance while requiring heterosexual couples to actually be married. Or, dealing with the transgender community, institutions that require everyone to use their legal name or when schools/the military have a policy not to update records to reflect a name change after leaving on the basis that they're "historical" documents; here the issue is that people go by a different name or change their names for many different reasons, but unlike most other cases where having a former name or name you prefer not to use floating around is merely a nuisance, with transgender people it usually effectively outs them in contexts where they'd rather not be.

(This is not the same as when for example a company explicitly prohibits same-sex partners on their insurance, an institution that allows cisgender people to specify a preferred name but not transgender people, or when they'll update the records due to name changes for other reasons but not for a gender change - in such cases that would be unquestioned discrimination.)

[GingerVicki]

The good thing is that it only effects 10 people.

[AnonyMs]

The good thing is that it only effects 10 people.

Unfortunately all connected to diplomats of foreign countries.

[Angela H]

The Trump administration seems to have a general policy of making it more difficult for people to get into the country. They're just playing to a general distrust his base has with foreigners.

My younger brother (who voted for Trump) has been having a very hard time getting a green card for his wife recently because of the immigration office cracking down on fraudulent marriages. I asked him if he regrets voting for Trump and he said "No, I can't blame him for enforcing the rules. It's really the fault of all the people trying to cheat the system."

I don't see why they couldn't expand the policy to include opposite sex partners as well as same sex partners instead of removing the current exemption. As long as it's limited to one person each it seems fair to me.  😉