At first I wondered why the Asian American LGBT community would be speaking out as a group against the House’s immigration bill. Surely individuals in the Asian American LGBT will have a diversity of opinions on this issue since it doesn’t seem to be related to discrimination or a denial of rights based on one’s sexual identity. They have written a letter to President Bush, Dennis Hastert, and Bill Frist however, which explains their opposition to the bill:
(1) We urge you to address the detention and deportation of immigrants. Many Muslim, South Asian, and Southeast Asian Americans have been improperly racially profiled and have not been afforded constitutional due process protections.
(2) We urge you undo the requirement that local police enforce complicated immigration laws. LGBTs have already encountered many problems with police misconduct and police brutality. There are insufficient assurances and resources to make this workable.
(3) We urge you to support the reunification of immigrant families and binational same-sex couples and ease the highly restrictive process to apply for political asylum.
We hope you will show compassion and will take our views into your consideration. [Link]
<
p>I support members of the LGBT community and their right to speak out on any issue. I also agree that the House’s immigration bill is just plain wrong and should be scrapped. I can’t however understand the intent behind this statement or how they think it will increase any kind of political pressure. In fact, it seems kind of opportunistic to me (especially point 3). Are they conflating separate issues just to get noticed? A joint statement by the group also contained the following as a possible explanation to my question:
…the House bill makes being an undocumented immigrant a felony. The same was true for LGBTs. Sexual relations between same-sex couples were criminal until the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws. So they wrote, ‘To love and show compassion should never be criminal.'” [Link]
Still seems like a weak connection to me. I am pointing this out because I often see various organizations (e.g. non-profits, non-partisan PACs, etc.) advocating for idealogies peripheral to their apparent mission, which results in an ultimately less effective/powerful organization. In this case I agree with their stance but I feel that by taking a position as a group they may be pigeonholing themselves into irrelevance for future debates.
it does appear to be a stretch. but that is also an artefact of our political culture, in which identiy politics has been the most effective vehicle for advancing interests and demands, at least for the last 15 years or so. most political organization takes place under identity-politics banners, and there may well me multiple organizations with competing views organizing around the same ethnic, racial, gender or orientation identity.
you are probably looking at a statement from a grouping of progressive LGBT groups who value and practice solidarity across progressive issues. there are probably other Asian LGBT groups that are not signatories to this letter and would not agree to do so. it would be interesting to see the actual listing of signatories to this letter. the advocate did not reprint the list nor provide a link.
the LGBT community does have lots of different political trends and methods within in, just like any other large community. for instance, on national issues, the Human Rights Campaign is famously less aggressive/activist than the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. there’s something for everyone.
peace
One reason pops into my head as to how the interests are tied. If the LGBT community is already targetted for abuse as in point (2), adding in automatic felony status just subjects them to more drastic and more common mistreatment. Untrained local oolice get to pick “Should I harrass you because I think you’re gay? or because I think your papers look funny? Wait, I know! Both!”
Gender and sexuality based asylum claims are at the focus of a legal war right now. Most immigration proposals make asylum more restrictive and increase the number of undocumented immigrants picked up and placed in detention. These two together mean that alot more LGBT Asian-Americans are going to be in removal proceedings and seeking asylum as a LGBT person which is going to be much harder to get. So I don’t think they are completely off point speaking as a group.
interesting… asylum, how is an asylum petition based on gender/sexual orientation disc. treated. A friend has pointed out that the process is so subjective to be almost meaningless.
“I often see various organizations (e.g. non-profits, non-partisan PACs, etc.) advocating for ideologies peripheral to their apparent mission, which results in an ultimately less effective/powerful organization.”
One of the main points of the social justice movement is understanding the connectedness of all forms of oppression. Showing support for causes that may not directly affect oneself builds coalitions.
“they may be pigeonholing themselves into irrelevance” Is that worse than being marginalized out of social existence? It’s hard enough to get people to recognize multiple identities (e.g. queer AND desi AND woman AND atheist AND …) in this society; is speaking up for a relevant cause really going to push us further outside of social discourse?
One of the main points of the social justice movement is understanding the connectedness of all forms of oppression. Showing support for causes that may not directly affect oneself builds coalitions.
i agree with the second sentence, that seems common sense, but the first one seems like a vacuous platitude.
“Surely individuals in the Asian American LGBT will have a diversity of opinions on this issue since it doesnÂ’t seem to be related to discrimination or a denial of rights based on oneÂ’s sexual identity.”
But all Asian Americans will feel the same way because…?
These folks say it better than I could. Having learned the lesson of the day, I cite rather than attempt to paraphrase.
i think this artice in samar gives good food for thought on why LGBT communities need to speak out on immigrants’ right issues: This contrast of victory and loss evinces the inequality perpetuated between “citizens” and “immigrants” within the “gay rights movement” in North America and most parts of Western Europe. The “gay rights movement” has been absent in the struggles of immigrants. In the United States, where I have spent the last ten years organizing around immigrant rights, Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender (LGBT) and HIV/AIDS issues, the “gay rights movement” and immigrant rights movement have rarely shared the table with each other. As a result, both movements have severely suffered in developing a vision, larger base and political power. read full article: Why the “Gay Rights Movement” is Anti-Immigrant Rights” http://www.samarmagazine.org/archive/article.php?id=200
So it’s okay for Black people, Asian groups, Latino groups, Washington DC policy groups, the media, and everyone else who wants to (including Sepia Mutiny) to express opinions about the current immigration bills, but if a collection of groups comes together to express their sentiments, that’s somehow “opportunistic”? Have you met any LGBT people of color? I spoke to some at a queer desi party while i was trying to get a petition signed for a pakistani person who was being deported a few years ago and a lot of them have immigration issues of various kinds.
Anyway, Siddhartha’s analysis is probably accurate (though I don’t understand why the Advocate published the text of the letter without offering at least a link to the list of the groups). The only way you’re going to get a progressive immigration bill is to enlish progressives of all kinds on this issue. You have to consider the context here–there’s reportedly a lot of racism and, I would guess–anti-immigrant sentiment in the predominantly White lgbt commnunity. To send a letter like this to the Advocate is an intervention in opening up the debate from an intersectional community and helping push forward a discussion betwee the two, instead of these idiotic “they’re cutting ahead of us in line” arguments that some people from other disempowered groups have been making.
Further, I’d note that one issue that’s been raised by the LGBT poc group Audre Lorde Project–repealing HIV bans on immigration–has made it into a comprehensive statement of policies by the National Network of Immigration and Refugee Rights (not a queer group), but is NOT here–so it’s not like this is the most radical assemblage of demands ever.
The issue of whether the groups are accountable to “all Asian Americans will feel the same way” is totally separate and worth considering. But I would ask you to apply the same analysis to Washington-DC based policy groups, “immigrant rights” non-profit organizations, Congress people, labor unions, and everyone else who is weighing in on this debate. Otherwise it’s just unfair.
Abhi, I’m not quite sure what you are identifying as “mistakenly conflated” issues — implicit in your post is the idea that there are no LGBT non-citizens affected by the immigration laws. That no LGBT “Muslim, South Asian, and Southeast Asian Americans have been improperly racially profiled and have not been afforded constitutional due process protections” (point 1 of the letter), and no LGBT non-citizens who are at greater risk if we usher in a policy of “local police enforc[ing] complicated immigration laws” (point 2). Which of course isn’t the case. Far from being peripheral to their mission, this letter might instead be understood as a sign that these groups are recognizing the diversity and intersectionality within Asian American LGBT communities, that there are LGBT non-citizens of Asian descent who will be deeply affected by the proposed legislation.
Moreover, as some of the earlier comments already have suggested, US immigration law has been deeply and systematically anti-LGBT for decades and decades (essentially point 3 of the letter), and continues to be so even as the rest of the law is inching — granted, inching — in more progressive directions (e.g., Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, recognition of civil unions and same-sex marriage). What’s on the table and at stake right now is comprehensive immigration reform, and so all of these issues properly should be on the table together. If family reunification is a principle at stake in the immigration debate, which it is, why shouldn’t reunification of LGBT couples be part of that discussion? If we are making changes to the asylum rules, which these bills propose to do, why shouldn’t we be talking about gender and sexuality-based asylum claims?
But maybe I’ve misunderstood your point. I realize, after all, that this is not Internalizing Abhi who is writing this post, merely unconsciously regurgitating analysis he “loves” written by someone else many years ago, but rather NASABA Abhi, the saavy tort lawyer. Don’t want to be misunderestimating. 😉
When there is injustice, it’s important that people can speak out against in from their community. While our homophobic politicians are not likely to be moved by this letter, it is yet another group that is organizing against these bills. And yes, demanding that their rights as LGBT people are also considered. I don’t think there is anything “opportunistic” about this. Just as there have been letters written addressing the needs of various ethnic communities, it is also important to consider the impact this legislation has on the LGBT community. And who else is going to be out there bringing up LGBT issues? I see very few allies in the so-called “progressive” spaces, which are mostly just concerned about how straight brown men are oppressed (which we do need to speak out against, but what about the oppression that occurs within our communites..okay, i’m getting off topic..)
what about the oppression that occurs within our communites..okay, i’m getting off topic..
In my opinion, this is not off topic, anjoo. I feel sad that you felt that way.
Normally I love your posts, abhi, but I think that it would have been a lot more helpful to all of us if you had taken a momentary trip through google–or any area of U.S. Immigration law–to see how LGBT families are front and center of who gets victimized here. This is not a “peripheral” matter; anyone who cares about social justice for immigrants should make more of an effort to learn about the different ways immigration laws target LGBT people before making uninformed generalizations about “pigeonholing” and “opportunism.” You should spend just one hour, or one minute, talking to families who get divided or deported because they cannot marry their same-sex partners–if you did, I think you would understand quite well why this issue matters to the queer community, and should matter to the larger immigrant rights community at large.
This article (about a report issued by human rights watch on immigration) says it better than I ever could, and I hope that the thoughtful comments posted here will help you to rethink your perspective:
http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2006/05/02/5