Connect with us

Some Families Are More Equal Than Others

Published

on

Sunday morning, after trying to hail a cab for far too long, I finally got to Grand Central and boarded the Metro North train to Connecticut with my Mother’s Day gift bag in one hand, a Starbucks’ coffee and muffin in the other and my backpack on my shoulder. Shortly after grabbing a seat on the crowded holiday train a family of five (young boy, young girl, mom, dad, and dog) spread out and grabbed various non-adjacent seats near me. I grabbed my weekend New York Times for cover.

Mom and son were right across from me, and her entire conversation with the five-year-old seemed focused on this choice or that choice. “Do you want your book now or candy now?” “Do you want the book about the train or the book about baseball?” An elderly passenger asked the boy how old he was. “Five and three quarters!” “Oh, you’re going to have a birthday soon! Are you going to have a party?” To which mom chimed in, “Well, he and his sister haven’t decided yet if it’s going to be Chuck E. Cheese or pizza.”

Of course the family-of-five got me thinking about how families have changed, so on the way home when I came across the Times piece, “Immigration Status of Army Spouses Often Leads to Snags,” I thought I was ready.

What I wasn’t ready for was the huge hypocrisy I was about to read.

It seems in today’s military, there are a fair number of servicemembers married to immigrants who are in the country, for one reason or another, “illegally.” (While I hate that term, in this context it’s fitting.) The military, it seems, is hard at work, on a case-by-case basis, trying to obtain legal status for some spouses.

Now, let me say this first: I think if someone is prepared to lay down their life to protect mine, they should be paid a lot of money, given free health care and college tuition and a job, for life. And if their spouse needs citizenship papers — or if they do — it should be automatic (unless they’re a convicted felon, perhaps.)

So, hooray for the military, trying to do the right thing. I hope they extend this treatment, given the excessive tours of duty our armed forces are being forced into, for wars we should not be fighting.

But the naked hypocrisy is mind-blowing. The Times explains,

Immigration lawyers and Department of Homeland Security officials say that many thousands of people in the military have spouses or close relatives who are illegal immigrants.

Today the issue is not only personal. “It is an issue of readiness for the American armed forces,” says Representative Zoe Lofgren, the Democrat from California who leads the House subcommittee on immigration. “We have many Americans who are afraid to deploy.”

Lieutenant Tenebro would like to make a career in the military, including new missions to Iraq or Afghanistan, but for now he is not stepping forward for an overseas deployment. “Our situation has kept me at bay because of the constant worry that something might happen to my family while I am away,” he said.

The issue is not only personal, it is an issue of readiness for the American armed forces. And there are far more lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender servicemembers – an estimated 65,000 — who are stepping forward, I might add, and serving in fear, not of their spouses being deported, but of dying and their not-illegal, just not-legally-recognized, spouses not knowing because their mere existence would be grounds for termination.

(There is, of course, also the matter of same-sex couples having one member in the armed forces, and the other an “illegal,” and because they are same-sex, there are few opportunities for them to marry. Even if they do, married same-sex couples are not recognized by the federal government, so their union will not stop a deportation from taking place. More hypocrisy and injustice. And another reason why so many same-sex couples are giving up their citizenship and moving to countries that do recognize their relationships.)

Picture the city cop on a beat whose wife knows every day he goes off to work he may not come home. Think of the daily fear she has of there being a knock on the door, and two officers standing outside. Now imagine what it must be like for a military wife, knowing that the last time she saw her husband, months ago, may have been the last. Then imagine that her “husband” is a woman, and the military won’t even contact her because she isn’t legally allowed to exist.

Imagine your husband or wife being killed for serving your country, and your country not ever even knocking on your door.

Yes, in today’s military, if you are a man married to woman who is “illegal,” the armed forces will work to obtain citizenship for your “illegal” spouse, but if you are a man in a relationship with another man, the military will fire you if they find out.

Imagine the Hell America puts its 65,000 gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender soldiers and their families through every single day.

There’s that lovely MetroNorth family-of-five, swimming in choice after blissful choice. There’s the dutiful, dedicated family serving their country, one spouse legal, one spouse not.

And then there are the 65,000 gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender soldiers serving their country, dutifully, dedicated, and what do they get?

A discharge.

This is just a small part of the tyranny that is “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” We must act, now, to repeal this law that unfairly treats so many thousands of honorable soldiers who are working to protect America.

Yes, in today’s America, some families are more equal than others.


Act now! Visit Veteran’s Lobby Day for more information, and contact your Senator!

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Judge Tosses Kennedy Center’s Lawsuit Against Artist Who Canceled Over Trump’s Name

Published

on

A judge on Friday tossed out a lawsuit brought by the Kennedy Center against an artist who withdrew from a performance after the organization’s board voted to add President Donald Trump’s name to the venue, The Washington Post reports.

The artist, jazz musician Chuck Redd, pulled out over what he called “the defiant and illegal name change happening to the Kennedy Center,” according to the Post.

But, as D.C. Superior Court Judge Tanya Jones Bosier found, Kennedy Center officials had not made a legally binding agreement with Redd, and there could be no breach of contract claim as a result.

“There’s no dispute that he did not sign the 2025 agreement,” the judge said.

In a statement, Redd’s attorney, Lisa Banks, said Redd had been sued “because he publicly and rightly objected to adding Donald Trump’s name to the Kennedy Center, a living memorial to former President John F. Kennedy.”

Banks called the lawsuit “political retribution, pure and simple, by the Trump Kennedy Center,” and said that “the Court correctly saw it as such in dismissing the case with prejudice.”

According to the Post, after Redd withdrew, then-Kennedy Center president Richard Grenell said in a letter to Redd, “This is your official notice that we will seek $1 million in damages from you for this political stunt.”

In December, Redd told the Associated Press, “When I saw the name change on the Kennedy Center website and then hours later on the building, I chose to cancel our concert.”

On Thursday, the general counsel for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts ordered Trump’s name to “immediately” be removed from the building after a federal judge found adding the president’s name to the Center was unlawful, The New York Times reported.

“The memo gave staff members detailed instructions on the materials that needed to be updated, including social media accounts, email signatures and voice mail messages,” the Times reported. “It specified that outdoor and indoor signage with the barred name must be altered by June 12.”

Late last month, a federal judge ordered that President Donald Trump could not rename the Kennedy Center, nor could he close it for what the Trump administration said were two years of renovations.

“The Kennedy Center’s organic statute makes crystal clear that the Center is to be named for President Kennedy, and it cannot bear any other formal name or public memorial based on the Board’s unilateral say-so,” the judge wrote, CNBC reported. “Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it.”

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

How ‘Inept’ Trump Is Getting ‘Worse at All of This’: Political Scientist

Published

on

“All presidents lose. Trump loses more often, on more things, than most,” says political scientist Jonathan Bernstein in a written conversation with New York Times Opinion editor John Guida.

Bernstein argues that Trump is an “inept” president who “actually gets worse at all of this as he goes along.”

“Trump thinks winning elections is like winning a prize — the United States of America — to do with as he pleases,” he writes. “But what actually happens in elections is that the voters hire you to do a job. It’s a job with some 340 million bosses. And like all jobs, it has constraints and obligations.”

Trump “just doesn’t see that,” says Bernstein, who also notes that “Trump has hardly had a week where his approval exceeded his disapproval.”

What Trump is actually good at is being “a really good reality TV star.”

“He’s very good at grabbing attention,” which “can help a president set the agenda,” Bernstein says. “Political scientists have found that presidents aren’t very good at changing what people think, but they can be good at changing what people think about.”

Trump has been good at creating “a Democratic Party eager to fight — and that may even, in time, undermine the 50 years of successful G.O.P. gains in the courts,” but he has not worked to get his agenda passed in Congress.

“With the power to set the agenda, skilled presidents can get things done: by pressing Congress to vote on something they would rather not vote on or by pressing the bureaucracy to pay attention to their directives,” says Bernstein. “Trump is an inept president, so he mostly squanders the attention he gets — and at least half the time, he winds up drawing attention to things that don’t help him at all.”

Trump has not been successful at getting Congress to pass his most important legislation: the SAVE America Act, or at getting the Senate to kill the filibuster. Recently, even some GOP lawmakers crossed the aisle in a significant rebuke of the president — namely the War Powers Act legislation — and some have balked at Trump’s $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund.

Meanwhile, “Trump has managed to do a lot of damage that will be truly hard to undo,” says Bernstein. “Legal talent has drained from the Justice Department. The same thing is happening virtually everywhere in the federal Civil Service, especially after work force cuts.”

It will “take time to rebuild,” but it will “be hard for any future president to recover from the foreign policy debacles,” he warns.

 

Image via Reuters 

 

Continue Reading

News

Why James Carville Says Voters Should Back Graham Platner — Despite His ‘Flaws’

Published

on

Democratic political consultant James Carville wants Maine voters to back Graham Platner despite the candidate’s flaws — and partly because of some of them. Platner is currently the likely Democratic nominee in Maine’s U.S. Senate race. If Platner wins the primary, he will face Republican Senator Susan Collins, who was first elected in 1996.

“I understand he’s f—— up,” said Carville on his Politicon podcast. “Yeah, maybe we need a combat veteran right on that Senate floor, who is f—— up.”

Carville berated Senator Collins by calling her “the most pliable member in the history of the United States Senate.”

He warned that he believes the country is “in imminent peril — I mean, imminent peril,” and asked: “Who is most likely to slow this criminal in charge?”

“I think it’s Graham Platner.”

“I ask all of you to understand his flaws, and understand the peril that this nation is in, and maybe he might be the right guy at the right time,” said Carville.

“Graham Platner grew up, I think, pretty privileged,” Carville said, sharing some of the likely Democratic nominee’s backstory. “He went to some kind of fancy fancy boarding school. He graduated, he joined the United States Marine Corps. He was in for eight years. He had three combat deployments. He gets out of the Marine Corps, and he goes to GW.”

Then Platner “joined the Maryland National Guard. Oh, you know what happened? He gets deployed a fourth time.”

“He’s f—— up,” said Carville. “He’s been shot at. He’s a veteran. All right? He’s got a little bit weird. He’s an oysterman. I know what oystermen do. I live in Louisiana. I think that oyster harvesting is the same the world over, it’s hard a—— work.”

Carville acknowledged that he has concerns, but said that maybe senators “need to look at this guy before they start sending young people off to fight wars, and see what the consequence of it is. Maybe he ought to run and say, ‘You don’t know, I’m gonna be on a veterans affairs committee, and I wanna be on a mental health subcommittee, ’cause I know something about… Yeah, I might be five degrees off dead center. So f—— what?’ They need that.”

He said he doesn’t agree with Platner’s economic stances, that they are “to the left of anything I’d say I’m for.”

“But you know what? He recognizes this horrific inequality in this country. And it actually would do some good to have somebody in there.”

Carville called Platner’s tattoo “very troubling.”

He said, “what I have to consider first, is this country is about to lose it. The whole goddamn thing.”

“Okay, we gotta win this,” Carville concluded. “And if we got a person who’s understandably got issues, yeah, good. And maybe people ought to see it, and maybe we ought to just be reminded of what these stupid wars have brought about in the consequence of said stupid wars. It’s [what] stupid Susan Collins been for all her political life.”

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2026 AlterNet Media.