Queer Migration Politics: Activist Rhetoric and Coalitional Possibilities

Notes

notes introduction 1.TheImmigrationActof1990(Pub.L.101-649,104Stat.4978,enactedNovember 29,1990).Despitethisseeminggain,thislawdidnotendtheexclusionofHIv-positive people from migration to the United States, and did nothing to address exclusions based on having committed crimes of moral turpitude, a type of crime historically used to exclude queer people. 2. The acronym “LGBT” (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) or sometimes “GLBT,” did not become common until the 1990s. Prior to that, people primarily talked in terms of “lesbian and gay” or “gay community” issues. Because of the time period I am talking about in this introduction, and the language these groups used at the time, I begin to use “LGBT” only when I talk about the present. 3. The Human Rights Campaign Fund was founded in 1980 and changed its name to the Human Rights Campaign in 1995. The National Gay Task Force was founded in 1973. Its name change to National Gay and Lesbian Task Force occurred in 1985. Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund was initiated in 1971 and incorporated in 1973. 4. Bennett and Ullman, “Clinton Reaffirms,” A15. 5. “LGIRTF,” March 3, 1997, http://www.qrd.org/qrd/www/world/immigration/ lgirtf.html, accessed September 21, 2012. 6. “Sexual identity” essentially means gender identity, but this is the term used at the time in the case law. 7. The number set in the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act (Hart-Celler Act, INS,Actof1965,Pub.L.89-236)was74percent.Theactualpercentageofpeoplemigrating through family ties varies on a yearly basis. The formula for admitting people inthevariousexistingcategoriesoffamilyisverycomplicatedandnotespeciallyrelevanthere .Familyreunificationhascontinuedtobeacontestedissue,aswasthecase during debates leading to the 1996 changes in immigration law, in which Congress members discussed whethersomuchpreference should begiven to family reunification or if there should be a shift to focus more on those with desired labor skills. See Gerken, “Immigrant Anxieties,” ch. 3. 8. Several additional grassroots organizations developed in subsequent years to advocate for binational same-sex couples, including Love Exiles, Love Sees No Borders , Out4Immigration, and others. In 2003, the Queer Immigrant Rights Project (QUIR) formed under the auspices of the American Friends Service Committee to support and advocate for LGBTQ and HIv-positive immigrants in New York. This group did not emphasize only binational couples, and in fact sought a much broader agenda. Thanks to QUIR Dallas for directing my attention to this history. See http:// web.archive.org/web/20041204043443/http://www.quir.org/aboutus.php,accessed April 8, 2013. 9. In addition to what I have shared above, a quick search of popular LGBT publications like the Advocate, or mainstream media sources, including the NewYorkTimes, Time, or the Huffington Post, reveals extensive coverage of issues pertaining to binational same-sex couples and virtual silence on any other issues pertaining to LGBT immigration. Since 2010 there has been minor coverage of migrant youth who are also queer. See chapter 3. 10. Muñoz also writes against the “antirelational thesis” advocated by some queer theorists’ visions of future that discount many types of relationality, more or less, altogether. See Bersani, Homos; Edelman, NoFuture. 11. Muñoz, CruisingUtopia, 16. 12. Ibid., 9. 13. See also, e.g., Floyd, “Importance of Being Childish.” 14. Rosenberg and villarejo, “Introduction: Queerness, Norms, Utopia,” 11. 15. Floyd, “Queer Principles of Hope.” 16.Tobesure,aestheticscanbepoliticalandpoliticscanbe,andoftenare,aesthetic. I am not interested in reifying a binary or engaging in long-standing conversations abouttherelationshipbetweentheaestheticandpolitical.Yetthereareinstanceswhen adistinctionbetweenartandperformanceversusactivismisimportantandclear,such as when addressing modes of political organizing and activism that have little or no artisticdimension.Forsure,someoftheactivismdiscussedinthisbookisbothartistic and aesthetic. 17. Lugones, Pilgrimages/Peregrinajes, 5. 18. Alinsky, RulesforRadicals, 12. 152 • notes 19. Berlant, CruelOptimism, 4. 20. I often use the terms “inclusionary,” “normative,” and “mainstream” interchangeably when talking about the predominant liberal agenda of both LGBT and immigrantrights.Whilethischoicecouldbecritiquedforconflatingterms,theinclusionaryandmainstreamingstrategiesoftheLGBT ,immigrant,andLGBTimmigrant rights movements work through normative logics that create distinctions between “deserving” and “undeserving” people. See, for example, Batstone and Mendieta, Good Citizen; Duggan, Twilight of Equality; Gerken, “Immigrant Anxieties.” 21. Throughout this book I use the word “migrant” to refer to immigrants, refugees , and asylum seekers who have crossed an international border, regardless of whether they have documents. Using “migrant” instead of marking distinctions between different types of migrants is important because, as Luibhéid has shown, a “shifting line” exists between these different statuses, as one can move from being documented to undocumented in a mere moment. See Luibhéid, “Sexuality, Migration .” When organizations or individuals use “immigrant” in their rhetoric, I usually utilize their language. On occasion...