| Review of: | Queer Migrations: Sexuality, U.S. Citizenship, and Border Crossings edited by Eithne Luibhéid, Lionel Cantú Jr. |
|---|---|
| Reviewed By: | Karen C. Krahulik |
| Reviewed in: | Peace & Change |
| Date accepted online: | 14/01/2008 |
| Published in print: | Volume 32, Issue 04, Pages 590-612 |
Book Reviews
In
Yet, this is not a project that spans the globe delineating queer migrations from multiple continents. Instead, it is more terse, looking mainly, although not exclusively, at migration from Mexico, Cuba, El Salvador, and the Philippines. Readers ought not feel deprived, however, as Luibhéid and Cantú link a range of disciplinary fields-history, literary theory, cultural studies, queer and race theory, anthropology, women's studies, sociology, and the visual arts-with a coherent argument that bolsters the interdisciplinary strengths of immigration studies. Their argument is simple: that sexuality has played a vital role in shaping immigration policies, practices, and experiences in the United States. Yet it is underpinned by a complex set of commitments, including an insistence that scholars focus less on a binary model of citizen/alien and more on the experiences of citizens and aliens who are "multiply marginalized" while they negotiate nationhood and legal as well as cultural belonging. The essays Luibhéid and Cantú bring together speak to new frameworks for immigration studies, namely, those that seek to understand how border crossings constitute transnational rather than lateral movements.
While making a necessary intervention regarding the heteronormativity of immigration studies, Luibhéid and Cantú are also careful to contextualize sexuality more broadly within the technologies that have historically regulated the boundaries of the United States and its citizens. They introduce their project with an adept (queer) theoretical analysis, yet they follow this with a detailed historiography of the ways in which U.S. immigration authorities have excluded potential citizens based on gender, ethnicity, race, and class. For example, they remind readers of the 1875 Page Law, which excluded Asian women who were tagged as single, poor, and, therefore, "immoral." They discuss the premises supporting the 1882 Chinese exclusion act as well as the Immigration Act of 1924, which influenced Asians as well as Southern and Eastern Europeans. Immigrants who were read as white, affluent, and belonging to or at least potentially productive of nuclear, heteropatriarchal families received preferential treatment. Importantly, they note, gay and lesbian migrants are yet another cog in the wheel of U.S. border control.
The strength of Luibhéid and Cantú's volume lies in its ability to disrupt the liberationist metanarrative of U.S. immigration history that positions all immigrants as "freedom-seeking" opportunists who find that the United States is indeed a land of plenty.
A minor flaw in Luibhéid and Cantú's collection concerns the way they position their work as a project filling a critical gap in queer theory and immigration studies. They begin somewhat inaccurately by stating, "despite rich scholarship about the causes and consequences of international migration, there has been little consideration of how sexual arrangements, ideologies, and modes of regulation shape migration to and incorporation into the United States" (p. ix). Yet, as they concede just a few pages later, scholars from a number of disciplines, including history, literary theory, queer theory, political science, and legal studies, have made substantial progress during the past two decades in areas from transnational immigrant rights to citizenship exclusion based on HIV/AIDS. This move, like the title that suggests a project much broader in scope than the one undertaken, are unfortunate missteps, yet in no way do they take away from the important turn Luibhéid, Cantú, and their contributors have taken in moving us toward a more complex and less rigid understanding of border-crossing politics and experiences. By way of concluding, however, I ask that scholars remain mindful of the differences between queer methodologies and queer subjects, between queer migrations and queer migrants. Are gay and lesbian border crossers queer simply by virtue of being "out" as gay, of being transgressive in legal terms, or do they, like the authors that write about them,
