Queering the immigration “debate”
Mikey Velarde ‘09
Let me begin by stating that this article does not even come close to scratching the surface of the myriad issues surrounding queer immigration, especially regarding how it factors in to the so-called immigration “debate.” (In fact, the term “queer immigration” is perhaps misleading.) What I’d like to do here is briefly sketch over some rudimentary ideas and concerns that I hope will generate a larger discussion within activist circles and intellectual conversations.
Taking a queer perspective allows us to actively and radically critique the normative, hegemonic ideas underpinning anti-immigration legislation and attitudes. In trying to “undermine the idea of sexual identities and orientation,”—going beyond traditional notions of gay, lesbian and heterosexual identities—queer perspectives focusing on immigration and border issues have the potential to denaturalize restrictive and deadly state projects and actions like border militarization.
However, a queer stance goes further than critiquing policy. Queer scholarship can illuminate the dialectic between sexuality and “citizenship” or “nation” by detailing how it forms and defines and is itself formed and defined constitutively by dominant, normative conceptions of these terms. Queer scholarship can thereby expand these notions in radical ways, noting the power relations behind it all.
One principle concern is that the state, by attempting to regulate the demography and quantity of who enters legally and subsequently “illegally,” effectively regulates identities. Although constrained (or perhaps liberated?) in some ways by the needs of global capitalism , and other powerful social forces, at least with regards to the U.S., the state has—from its infancy to the present—implemented policy that excludes all those it perceives of as “undesirable.” This entails not only the poor, women, people of color, and its political adversaries to name a few, but gays, lesbians, and all those who do not adhere sexually or in any other way to its standards. In regards to GLBTQ persons, United States policy thereby tries to “incorporate immigrants into hegemonic nationalist identities and projects” that reject sexually deviant or, again, “‘undesirable’ acts or outcomes.”
Beyond all the jargon and theory, we may be inspired to engage in immigration-related activism by noting three facts: According to a Lambda Legal pamphlet: “U.S. immigration law does not recognize same-sex relationships, and, as a result, same-sex spouses or partners are not eligible for immigration benefits.” This may not be surprising, but it certainly rarely factors in to the immigration “debate.” Furthermore, as a recent court case demonstrates, asylum is rarely granted or even considered on the basis of oppression due to one’s sexual orientation. In order to be granted asylum, in general, an individual must “demonstrate past persecution or well-founded fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular group, which now includes homosexuals.” Lastly, I would like to point out the somewhat obscure fact that the U.S. removed its ban on lesbian and gay immigrants in 1990.
Amidst a hailstorm of anti-immigrant sentiment, we too are feeling the sting. And as May Day (now operating as an immigrant rights day of action in the U.S.) arrives, not only should we push for more “comprehensive immigration” legislation, we should strive to thoroughly interrogate all its normative assumptions. We need to link up with grassroots organizations representing peoples deemed “undesirable.” We need to be out there on the streets, together in the multitude, demanding justice—not simply in the form of “policy,” but in the form of something entirely more profound.