Same-sex couples that are bi-national know all too well how deeply unfair it is that a lesbian American cannot petition for her wife to stay in the country. Unable to gain permanent residency through marriage, that immigrant spouse may have to overstay her visa for that couple to stay together in the US. Anti-immigration advocates would call such persons ‘illegal.’ Yet what is it to call someone illegal when the laws are unfair?
There is a glimmer of hope for some same-sex bi-national couples. In late June this year, federal officials cancelled the deportation notice for a gay Venezuelan who had married an American in Connecticut. As more states recognize same-sex marriage, the more it feels like inevitability for the nation.
It’s at that point, when same-sex marriage is finally fully legitimate across the nation that I worry that queer folks will no longer see the importance of advocating for the rights of immigrants. Even after same-sex marriage, humane immigrant reform should continue to be on our minds.
Vargas’ coming out as undocumented was akin to coming out gay in the early 1960s. Nobody would necessarily know your secret. And if you came out, you could lose everything and get loved ones in trouble. You were honestly perceived to be a threat to national security.
Some readers may think that I am making an unfair comparison. They would point out that gay Americans in the 1960s were nevertheless citizens. But what does it mean to be a citizen? Vargas is as American as any other Californian.
Anti-immigrant advocates want to limit the definition of US citizen to those whose ancestors were Americans. The “low immigration high enforcement” think-tank Center for Immigration Studies wants to limit naturalized citizenship to those who marry American citizens or as young children have no memory of any other country except America. In a hyper global economy, it seems ridiculous to wish for such a provincial society.
People who advocate for the DREAM Act want to have a pathway to citizenship for young and promising people who will either serve in the military or study in college. Granting citizenship to those in the military, especially in a military force that always needs new recruits, is clearly the right thing to do. Those going to college have a chance to contribute by adding to the skilled labor workforce and with it increased tax revenues.
I think the underlying anxiety for anti-immigration advocates is the fear that their children or grandchildren are losing out on opportunities. These advocates seem to not want a meritocracy where the best and brightest get to achieve and contribute but instead prefer a legacy-based oligarchy, where the random circumstances of one’s birth determine one’s lot in life.
Where is the line drawn between people who deserve the protection of the state and people who are seen as a threat to the state? Fifty years ago, queers were seen as a threat to society and the state. Now with recent LGBT political achievements, many queers are on the good side of the line. In that move to the ‘proper’ side, I hope that queers remember empathy and the need to fight injustice.
0 comments:
Post a Comment