GLAD, NCLR File Motion to Permanently Stop Trump-Pence Trans Military Ban

New Trans Military Ban Filing from NCLR, GLAD Would Accelerate Final Court Ruling to Permanently Stop the Trump-Pence Ban

GLAD says, “The government’s own documents, newly obtained by discovery, show the March 23 ‘Mattis Plan’ is the same unconstitutional, categorical ban… President Trump announced on Twitter”

NCLR says, “Thousands of transgender servicemembers are currently serving—one of our Doe plaintiffs has in fact served multiple tours of duty abroad, two in Iraq. The ban erodes military readiness”

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Transgender military ban plaintiffs in Doe v. Trump, the first lawsuit to challenge the Trump-Pence ban, filed a cross-motion for summary judgment last night in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs’ motion asserts that undisputed facts show the ban, including the March 23 Mattis implementation plan, violates their Equal Protection and Due Process rights, and that the court should provide permanent declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the Trump-Pence ban from ever being implemented.

The plaintiffs’ motion describes the ban as the only military “policy that excludes people from military service based on their membership in a class rather than on an individual’s fitness to serve” and calls out that “no other military policy excludes a class of persons from an equal opportunity to enlist or serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.”’ It also characterizes the March 23 “Mattis Plan” and panel report as “most notable for what it fails to do”: it does not and could not show that transgender people are not capable of meeting existing military standards for service. Instead, the “Mattis Plan” and panel report makes sweeping generalizations, relying on false stereotypes about mental health and deployability.

Plaintiffs also filed a separate motion last night opposing the administration’s motions to dismiss the case and to dissolve the nationwide preliminary injunction issued October 30, 2017 by District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

“The government’s own documents, newly obtained by discovery, show the March 23 ‘Mattis Plan’ is the same unconstitutional, categorical ban of all transgender people from military service that President Trump announced on Twitter,” said Jennifer Levi, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) Transgender Rights Project Director. “There is no reason to treat transgender people so unfairly. The Plaintiffs seek nothing more than to be held to the same standards applied to all other servicemembers.”

“By the military’s own count, thousands of transgender servicemembers are currently serving—one of our Doe plaintiffs has in fact served multiple tours of duty abroad, two in Iraq,” said Shannon Minter, National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) Legal Director. “The ban erodes military readiness and would be the only military policy to exclude otherwise qualified people for who they are rather than their fitness to serve.”

Arguments from the plaintiffs’ filings:

The Trump-Pence transgender military ban harms military readiness by irrationally excluding qualified transgender servicemembers.
Tthe Trump administration’s March 23 “Mattis Plan” excludes transgender people from service based on their transgender status, rather than on any medical basis.
The “Mattis Plan” is the same categorical ban on trans service tweeted by President Trump despite its alleged “exception” for transgender people who serve in their birth sex. Just as a policy requiring Muslims to serve in the military only if they renounce their faith would be a ban on military service by Muslims, a policy requiring transgender individuals to serve in their birth sex is a ban on military service by transgender people. It is also similar to the earlier failed argument, uniformly rejected by courts, that laws limiting marriage only to male-female couples did not discriminate against gay people because a gay person could marry a person of the opposite sex.
The Trump administration’s own documents, obtained through discovery, show that that the process leading to the “Mattis Plan” was specifically undertaken to produce a policy consistent with Trump’s complete ban on transgender service. Rather than providing a valid reason to treat transgender people differently, the plan relies on gender stereotypes and sweeping generalizations about the roles and capabilities of transgender people.
Excluding qualified, fit candidates from service based on sweeping group-based generalizations is irrational. For example, depression, anxiety, and suicide are more common among white people than black people, but the military does not bar white people from service. And women are twice as likely as men to suffer from anxiety disorders, but the military does not exclude women from service.
Defendants’ unit cohesion arguments boil down to a claim that, “simply by existing as such, transgender people undermine sex-based standards.” If “that claim were sufficient to justify barring transgender people from military service, it would also justify their exclusion from any, and all, institutions that maintain sex-based criteria for facilities, including schools, workplaces, public accommodations, and beyond”—something courts across the country have repeatedly dismissed.

With this filing, both the Trump administration and Doe v. Trump transgender military ban plaintiffs have now indicated to the court there are no factual disputes in this case that would need to be resolved by a trial. If Judge Kollar-Kotelly grants summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, the court would permanently block the Trump-Pence transgender military ban from taking effect.

BACKGROUND

June 30, 2016: The United States Department of Defense (DOD) adopted a policy permitting transgender people to serve in the military based on a nearly two year DOD review determining that there was no valid reason to exclude qualified personnel from military service simply because they are transgender.

July 26, 2017: President Trump tweeted that “the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.”

August 9, 2017: NCLR and GLAD filed Doe v. Trump, the first lawsuit filed to stop the ban, challenging its constitutionality and requesting that the court issue a nationwide preliminary injunction to stop it from taking effect while the case is being heard in court.

August 25, 2017: President Trump issued a memorandum ordering Secretary of Defense James Mattis to submit “a plan for implementing” the ban by February 21, 2018. Secretary Mattis delivered this (the “Mattis Plan” and panel report) to President Trump on February 22, 2018.

October 30, 2017: The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that Doe v. Trump plaintiffs had established a likelihood of success on their claim that President Trump’s ban violates equal protection, that plaintiffs would be irreparably harmed without a preliminary injunction to stop the ban, and that the public interest and balance of hardships weighed in favor of granting injunctive relief and temporarily halting the ban while the case is heard by the court.

March 23, 2018: President Trump accepts the “Mattis Plan” and issues a memorandum in which he “revoked” his August 25 Memorandum.

April 20, 2018: Defendants file a motion to dissolve the October 30 nationwide preliminary injunction enjoining the transgender military ban issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint; and a Motion for Summary Judgment.

May 11, 2018: Plaintiffs file their cross-motion for summary judgment, as well as motions in opposition to Defendant’s motions to dissolve the injunction and dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint.

NCLR and GLAD have been at the center of the legal fight challenging the Trump-Pence transgender military ban since filing Doe v. Trump, the first of four cases filed against the ban, on August 9, 2017.

GLAD Calls on US Border Control to Allow Entry for Transgender Women Seeking Asylum, Condemns Violent Attacks

Home » National/Federal » Page 39

Following reports of violent and demeaning treatment of transgender women seeking asylum at the US border, including news of a shelter in which the women were staying in Tijuana, Mexico having been set on fire, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) issued the following statement:

The horrifying treatment of the transgender women who have traveled to our border seeking a reprieve from violence should be utterly unacceptable to every American.

Our core American ideals of liberty, democracy, and human rights require us to offer refuge to those who face severe threats in their home countries. Asylum is a life-saving system that is designed precisely to protect the extremely vulnerable. We have a responsibility to ensure that system is open and available to those who need it, including transgender people and other members of the LGBT community forced to flee places where they are fundamentally unsafe because of who they are.

We urge US Border Patrol to allow entry for all of these women and for the others who have traveled at great risk as part of the refugee caravan, to allow them the fair opportunity to make their case for asylum, and to ensure their safety and dignified treatment while their applications are processed.

News

Home » National/Federal » Page 39

In a bipartisan 14-10 vote, the New Hampshire Senate today passed HB 1319, a bill that will provide explicit comprehensive nondiscrimination protections for transgender people in employment, housing, and public spaces. The House passed HB 1319 in March by a strong bipartisan vote and the bill now goes to Governor Sununu for his signature. Once the bill is signed into law, New Hampshire will join 18 other states, including every state in New England, in providing comprehensive protections for transgender people.

Janson Wu, Executive Director of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), one of the lead partners in the Freedom New Hampshire Coalition advocating to pass the bill, made the following statement:

Today, the New Hampshire Senate voted to affirm the dignity and humanity of transgender Granite Staters, and to ensure they have an equal opportunity to live and work free from discrimination. For more than a decade, transgender people across the state – along with family, friends, and freedom-loving allies – have spoken out, shared their stories, and led the fight to secure these critical protections. GLAD has been proud to be a partner in that work every step of the way.

We are grateful to the many senators and representatives, including HB 1319’s lead sponsor Rep. Ed Butler, who voted to make their state a safer and more just place for everyone. New Hampshire’s leadership today sets an example for the nation of the incredible progress bipartisan cooperation can achieve.

At a time when the rights of transgender people are under attack from the Trump-Pence administration on every front – from schools, to health care, to military service – this resounding victory in New Hampshire shows clearly that support for equality is not a partisan issue but a basic matter of American fairness. Voters in neighboring Massachusetts will soon have an opportunity to echo that fact, as the spotlight on transgender equality moves to the fight to protect the Bay State’s public accommodation nondiscrimination law at the ballot this November.

All Granite Staters can hold their heads high today, knowing that New Hampshire is truly embracing its ideals of freedom for all, and taking its place as a leader in the growing movement to secure equality across the nation.

Leading partners in the Freedom New Hampshire coalition fighting for HB 1319 include GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), Freedom for All Americans, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire (ACLU-NH), Human Rights Campaign, Transgender New Hampshire, and Rights and Democracy New Hampshire.

New Filing Fires Back at Trump Administration Request to Move Forward with Trans Military Ban

Home » National/Federal » Page 39

RIVERSIDE, Calif.—The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) filed their opposition last night to a Trump-Pence Administration request to dissolve the nationwide preliminary injunction that U.S. District Court Judge Jesus G. Bernal issued December 22, 2017, in Equality California’s lawsuit, Stockman v. Trump. There are currently four separate preliminary injunctions issued by four separate federal courts, blocking Trump’s ban from moving forward while the cases are being heard by the courts.

On March 23, the Trump administration filed a motion to dissolve the injunction, claiming to issue a “new policy” on transgender military service. However, as NCLR and GLAD demonstrate in the opposition filing, that policy merely details the steps the military plans to take to implement the ban that Judge Bernal and three other federal court judges have already blocked from taking effect.

“There’s nothing new here,” said Jennifer Levi, GLAD Transgender Rights Project Director. “The supposedly ‘new policy’ excludes transgender people from military service. It is the same ban the courts have already enjoined.”

“There is no justification for a special rule banning transgender people from military service rather than permitting them to serve on the same terms as everyone else,” said Shannon Minter, NCLR Legal Director. “Transgender troops have already been serving their country with honor and dignity for decades.”

“No matter what the White House calls it, this is the same unpatriotic and discriminatory ban that four federal courts have already blocked from moving forward,” said Equality California Executive Director Rick Zbur. “At a time when our nation faces serious threats around the world, it’s baffling that President Trump remains focused on undermining our military by ripping thousands of distinguished service members from their posts.”

”Transgender Americans are guaranteed the same right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as any other American,” said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. “We owe transgender service members, like all Americans who courageously serve our nation, our support and gratitude for putting their lives on the line. President Trump’s transgender military service ban is primitive. It is discriminatory, plain and simple. We will fight it in every form.”

President Trump first announced his transgender military ban in a series of tweets in July 2017. Then in an August 25 memo, he directed the Secretary of Defense to create an implementation plan for his ban. In addition to Judge Bernal, three other federal district court judges have issued injunctions halting the ban, including in NCLR and GLAD’s DC-based case, Doe v. Trump. In each of the four cases, the courts have found that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that excluding transgender people from military service violates their guarantee of equal protection under the US Constitution. Earlier this month, Judge Marsha J. Pechman in the Washington state case Karnoski v. Trump, brought by Lambda Legal and Outserv-SLDN, denied the Trump administration’s request to lift that court’s injunction and ordered Karnoski to proceed to discovery and trial.

Top medical organizations and experts have refuted recent Trump administration attempts to justify its ban on transgender military service, including former Surgeons General, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association.

Senior military officials from all service branches have also confirmed that permitting transgender people to serve strengthens the force.

Stockman v. Trump was brought by Equality California on September 5, 2017, on behalf of the organization’s members as well as individual plaintiffs Aiden Stockman, Nicolas Talbott, Tamesyn Reeves, Jaquice Tate and three unnamed current service members. Attorney General Xavier Becerra intervened as a plaintiff on behalf of the State of California in November 2017.

In addition to NCLR and GLAD, plaintiffs in Stockman are represented by Latham & Watkins LLP.

Trump v. Hawaii

Home » National/Federal » Page 39

GLAD joined National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance (NQAPIA) in a friend-of-the-Court brief illustrating the disproportionate impact President Trump’s travel ban on people from a list of predominately Muslim countries would have on LGBTQ people.

Amicus co-signers include Immigration Equality, The New York City Gay And Lesbian Anti-Violence Project, The LGBT Bar Association of Los Angeles, The LGBT Bar Association of Greater New York, the Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago, Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, API Equality-Los Angeles, API Equality-Northern California, Invisible to Invincible: Asian Pacific Islander Pride of Chicago, KhushDC, Massachusetts Area South Asian Lambda Association, Queer South Asian Collective, The South Asian Lesbian and Gay Association of New York City, and Trikone-Northwest.

Action Opportunity

GLAD is proud to join the movement to respond to the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Hawai’i. While the decision date can’t be predicted, we anticipate that it will fall on a Monday in June. Join the gathering at the Supreme Court to show our strength as one justice movement and support equality for all.

Muslim Ban Decision Day
Date: To Be Determined
Time: 11:45am EST – 1:00pm EST
Location: US Supreme Court | 1 First St NE, Washington, DC 20543

RSVP page: www.wewillnotbebanned.org

Facebook event: www.facebook.com/events/175375686636175/

News

Home » National/Federal » Page 39

The American Medical Association recently issued a powerful letter in support of transgender servicemembers, affirming that “[t]here is no medically valid reason… to exclude transgender individuals from military service. Transgender individuals have served, and continue to serve, our country with honor, and we believe they should be allowed to continue doing so.”

This follows recent comments supporting military service by transgender individuals from two former surgeons general, as well as statements from the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association.

The American Medical Association’s opposition to the ban affirms what we know to be true — that the Trump-Pence ban on transgender servicemembers is baseless and discriminatory. Anyone who meets the military’s standards should be able to serve, and transgender Americans are serving – and are willing and able to serve – our country with honor.

Read the full letter.

Blog

Home » National/Federal » Page 39

Growing up in rural Mississippi, I wish I had known about the incredible Black LGBTQ leaders who paved the way for future generations. As a young gay man of African heritage, I was often faced by the reality of the growing racial, social, economic, and sexual orientation differences between me and my peers. It seemed like everyone around me had someone to look up to. I didn’t know there were courageous activists fighting for me. Sure, I was aware of prominent Black or LGBTQ leaders in their respective movements, but I was unaware then of the many Black LGBTQ leaders I could be inspired by.

I’ve been working in social justice for over 7 years now. I’ve been deeply engaged in national and local organizing, including with the National LGBTQ/HIV Criminal Justice Working Group and as the Founder of Queeri, an organization aimed at bridging the gaps between intersections of race, class, gender, sexual identity, and orientation. I am so proud to bring my passion and experience for social justice to GLAD as Community Engagement Manager, to lift the voices of LGBTQ Communities of Color and help ensure that everyone has equitable access to justice. I look forward to coordinating with local leaders who inspire me across New England to do this great work.

Leaders can challenge, encourage, and embolden us, and can be an anchor against harmful or trivial distractions. They can empower us to accomplish our goals, to fulfill our dreams. I am a leader today because of the many great leaders before me and those who work alongside me.

The most important thing I look for in a leader is someone who speaks truth to power in my life. I find it helpful when not only can I relate to that person, but when that person looks like me, loves like I do, and fights for causes that are important to me.

As our nation recognizes and celebrates Black History Month, it is important to take a moment to remember and honor the contributions of Black LGBTQ figures who have shined throughout the course of our nation’s history, and those who shine brightly today.

These Black LGBTQ icons, while often invisible or erased from the dominant queer narrative, have always been at the heart of our struggle for rights and inclusion.

In fact, what many refer to as the LGBTQ movement’s beginning, the rebellion against the police at the Stonewall Inn, was predominately led by queer and trans people of color, many of them youth.

In celebration of Black History Month and the journey of Black LGBTQ people, GLAD will feature the stories of Black LGBTQ people whose bravery and dedication to justice help to create a more inclusive world for us all. From trans liberation activist Marsha P. Johnson to civil rights leader Bayard Rustin; from community advocate Zahara Green to well-renowned activist Angela Davis – Black LGBTQ people have enriched our nation and our lives.

While it would be impossible to feature all the many Black icons to whom we owe a debt of gratitude for their tireless work, I encourage you to recognize those leaders who look like you, love like you do, and fight for causes that are important to you., especially those leaders in your communities.

We’ll continue to update our website with Black LGBTQ leaders, so keep checking back as the month goes on. What other Black LGBTQ leaders would you add to the list?

Blog

Home » National/Federal » Page 39

Transgender Americans are eligible to enlist, but the fight to end Trump’s discriminatory ban for good goes on

In the midst of challenging times for many in our nation, this new year began with one truly historic and promising moment. As of January 1, for the first time, transgender Americans became eligible to enlist in our nation’s military. This should be an incredibly proud step for our country. It follows a series of profound and positive changes in the history of our military – from racial desegregation, to welcoming service members from a multitude of faiths, from expanding roles for women, to ending the ban on service by lesbian, gay and bisexual people – all stemming from an understanding that our military is made stronger when it is reflective of the diverse American population it protects, and when all those who are both qualified and willing have an opportunity to serve. On January 2, our plaintiff Nicolas Talbott contacted the Air Force recruiter he has been working with for more than a year, thrilled to finally take the next step toward his dream.

“Service to me means coming together to take care of one another,” says Nicolas, who studied national security issues in college, about what motivates his long-standing desire to join the military. I just want to offer the skills and talents I have, to do what I can to make our country and our world a safer, better place. I’m excited and hopeful to finally move closer to that possibility.”

But whether we would get to this moment – whether patriotic and talented transgender Americans like Nicolas would be able to pursue their dreams of service – was in question up until the very end of December. And the fight to ensure that capable, courageous transgender Americans are able to serve, and that our military is able to benefit from that service, still goes on, as we continuing battling Trump’s transgender military ban in court. The June 2016 announcement that transgender people would be able to serve openly in the military followed over a year and a half of rigorous study by military experts, which concluded that open service would have no adverse impact and in fact would strengthen military readiness and national security. Transgender Americans who were already serving – some for decades, all with dignity and courage – began to come out to their commanding officers. At the same time, it was announced that openly transgender Americans would be able to enlist beginning the following year. But that thoroughly vetted and thoughtful policy was suddenly threatened when, last July, President Trump tweeted an announcement that transgender people would be prohibited from serving in any capacity in the U.S. military. GLAD and our partners at the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) immediately saw this announcement for what it was – a serious attack on our community. We knew we needed to act quickly to ensure the rights and dignity of transgender Americans, preserve the stability of our military, and protect our nation’s core values of equality and fairness. We filed the first challenge to Trump’s discriminatory and harmful transgender military ban, Doe v. Trump, on August 9, on behalf of five (since joined by a sixth) service members and two individuals seeking to serve. A few weeks later, we joined a second case, Stockman v. Trump, representing additional current and aspiring service members. On October 30, D.C. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a nationwide preliminary injunction halting the ban, in Doe v. Trump. Judge Kollar-Kotelly agreed our plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claim that Trump’s ban violates their constitutional right to equal protection, and recognized the serious harm the ban was already causing to transgender service members –who under it face discharge and the loss of their livelihoods, health care, and post-military retirement they have worked hard to earn – as well as to transgender Americans who the ban blocked from ever being able to serve, regardless of their individual qualifications. Since then, each of the other three federal district courts to consider Trump’s transgender military ban, including in GLAD’s second case Stockman v. Trump, has issued a similar injunction halting its enforcement while the cases proceed. The Trump administration challenged those rulings on appeal – and, as we got closer to the January 1, 2018 start date for open enlistment, began to ask for “emergency stays” of those rulings, seeking to delay that date. But neither the district courts nor the courts of appeal were persuaded by the administration’s argument that the military was not prepared for open enlistment to begin. The district courts denied the government’s request for an emergency stay, and the courts of appeal followed suit. In ruling against a stay, the D.C. Court of Appeals described the central question with these profound words:

“[I]t must be remembered that all Plaintiffs seek during this litigation is to serve their Nation with honor and dignity, volunteering to face extreme hardships, to endure lengthy deployments and separation from family and friends, and to willingly make the ultimate sacrifice of their lives if necessary to protect the Nation, the people of the United States, and the Constitution against all who would attack them.”

Late in the evening on December 29, we got incredible and welcome news: the Pentagon confirmed that the government was withdrawing its appeals of the temporary orders prohibiting enforcement of the ban, and would not seek a last minute “emergency” stay from the United States Supreme Court to delay the January 1 enlistment date. Transgender people throughout the country, whose future educational and career dreams rest on their being able to enlist, would finally be able to move forward. But this fight is far from over. While enforcement of the ban is currently blocked by court order, it remains official policy to deny continued service and enlistment by transgender people. The government is continuing to defend Trump’s ban in federal district court, where we are currently engaged in the discovery process. The government has also said that it will soon conclude a study of transgender people serving in the military, and we expect that it may use the outcome of that study as a further attempt to defend Trump’s discriminatory policies. “The beginning of open transgender enlistment is truly historic and something to celebrate,” says GLAD Transgender Rights Project Director Jennifer Levi, who with NCLR’s Shannon Minter is one of two transgender attorneys leading the fight against the ban. “But we can’t let down our guard. Beyond its devastating discriminatory impact on individual service members and on our military itself, allowing a ban on transgender service members to stand would have wide ranging implications. If transgender people are deemed categorically unfit to serve in the military, that exclusion will be used to justify discrimination in housing, employment, social services, family law, healthcare, public benefits, insurance, and beyond. This is a critical fight, for our community and for nation’s values.” GLAD, with our partners at NCLR and the other organizations who are challenging Trump’s ban in court will not stop fighting until it is gone for good. To follow case developments, visit our Doe v. Trump and Stockman v. Trump case pages.

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31

Home » National/Federal » Page 39

GLAD joined 80+ organizations on this amicus brief led by the National Women’s Law Center and The Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights in support of public sector unions, which provide critical protections for women, people of color & other marginalized workers. The brief urges the Supreme Court not to overturn four decades of precedent by undermining the fair share rule which allows public sector unions to effectively bargain for important rights and benefits for both member and non-member workers.

Blog

Home » National/Federal » Page 39

My parents grew up in Taiwan during the 1950s and 60s, at a time when Taiwan was a resource-poor and low-income island that was dependent on U.S. aid. My father’s father was a rural school principal, and my father’s mother helped feed their family of 9 children with their small, family farm. My mother’s parents owned a traditional Chinese herbal medicine store in their village, which supported their family of 7 children.

By President Trump’s standards today, as expressed in remarks yesterday about Haiti, El Salvador, and all African countries, my parents should never have been allowed to immigrate to the United States from their “shithole” island.

By denigrating the story of immigrants, President Trump denigrates the story of our nation.

Thankfully, Trump was not president in the 1970s, when my parents did immigrate here, which was only possible after decades of laws that excluded or limited Chinese people from coming to the U.S. were fully repealed in the 1960s. My father came to America in the 1970s to pursue his master’s degree in chemistry, which led to his first job in Minneapolis (where I was born), where he helped advance the science underlying Scotch tape. My mother, who had worked as a nurse in Taiwan, began as a low-wage health care aid at a nursing home while she learned English from watching T.V. soap operas, until she was able to pass her nursing exams. She went on to work in the delivery ward of a small, community hospital for over 20 years, helping deliver two generations of families in the small, rural community where I grew up.

I have gone on to devote my career as a lawyer advancing civil rights, and my sister is a doctor who conducts research on reproductive health. Her husband, also a doctor, is the son of parents who immigrated from India, and their children – my 13-year-old nephew and 9-year-old niece – recently donated money from their allowances to help defend transgender Americans who want to serve in the military. Since the 2016 election, they have listened to the news with interest and have voiced fears about how President Trump and how his policies may affect their lives, their friends, our family, and our country.

janson-family — My husband Adam and I with our families over the holidays.

I share my family’s history not because it is exceptional, but because it is entirely ordinary. It is the story of America. With the exception of Indigenous Americans and those who were forcibly brought here through slavery, in every family, in every community, these stories of hope and hard work through immigration is what built our country into what it is today.

By denigrating the story of immigrants, President Trump denigrates the story of our nation.

It is beyond time to defend Dreamers from deportation. It is beyond time to pass comprehensive immigration reform that protects family integrity and refugees. It is beyond time that we build bridges instead of walls, allies instead of enemies, with the rest of the world community.

On the night of President Trump’s election, my husband, who is a humanitarian aid doctor and whose mother immigrated here from Argentina, was working in a rural village on the south coast of Haiti, which was struggling with a cholera epidemic that had developed after the devastating earthquake in 2010. While he began the evening following the election results with his fellow aid workers from Haiti, they eventually left him before the results came in to get some rest, in preparation for another grueling day of work rebuilding their small community.

I imagine if those Haitian heroes could speak to President Trump today, they would invite him to roll up his sleeves and help rebuild their sewage system, which will help stem the spread of cholera in their village.

But we already know how Trump feels about that.

Immigration is a bedrock principle of our country, and we are made stronger by it. It is up to Congress to do the right thing and take immediate action to protect the lives of thousands of individuals and their families whose futures are at stake.

Call members of Congress and demand they pass the DREAM Act to support thousands of young people toward stability and legal residency in the U.S.; restore temporary protected status (TPS) for the nearly 200,000 citizens of El Salvador who have been lawfully residing in the U.S. following devastating earthquakes in El Salvador in 2001; and enact immigration policies that are true to American values.

For more information, and how you can contact members of Congress, visit:

United We Dream

National Immigration Law Center