Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
cc >> THE FOLLOWING PROGRAM IS A SPECIAL PRESENTATION OF THE BIG TEN NETWORK.
PRODUCED IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
>> GAY MARRIAGE AND IMMIGRATION ARE TWO OF TODAY'S MOST CONTENTIOUS SOCIAL TOPICS. HOW DO THESE HOT BUTTON ISSUES
INTERSECT? WE'LL EXAMINE THEIR CONNECTION NEXT DURING "OFFICE HOURS."
HI, I'M KEN GOLDSTEIN, PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON.
TODAY, WE'RE TAKING A LOOK AT THE POLITICS OF IMMIGRATION AND THE POLITICS OF SEXUALITY. JOINING ME IS KARMA CHÁVEZ,
PROFESSOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION ARTS AT UW-MADISON, AND CO-FOUNDER OF THE *** MIGRATION
RESEARCH NETWORK. IN ADDITION TO HER EXPERTISE ON IMMIGRATION SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, HER CURRENT RESEARCH EXPLORES
THE INTERSECTIONS OF IMMIGRATION AND SEXUALITY. KARMA, WELCOME TO "OFFICE HOURS."
>> THANK YOU. >> LET ME START WITH, IN SOME WAYS I THINK WHAT MIGHT BE THE OBVIOUS QUESTION.
IT MIGHT NOT BE SO CLEAR TO OUR VIEWERS RIGHT OFF THE BAT, WHAT THE CONNECTION IS BETWEEN IMMIGRATION POLITICS,
IMMIGRATION POLICY, AND *** POLITICS OR MARRIAGE POLICY. TAKE ME THROUGH THAT
A LITTLE BIT. >> I THINK IT OCCURS ON A NUMBER OF LEVELS. SO FOR ONE, SEXUALITY,
PARTICULARLY NON-HETEROSEXUALITY HAS ALWAYS BEEN A REASON FOR EXCLUDING IMMIGRANTS FROM COMING TO THE UNITED STATES.
MOST OF MY RESEARCH IS CENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES. >> LET ME INTERRUPT YOU FOR A SECOND, I'M SORRY.
BUT I DIDN'T REALIZE UNTIL WE WE'RE PREPARING FOR THIS, THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY UNTIL 1990, ILLEGAL TO IMMIGRATE
TO THE UNITED STATES IF YOU WERE GAY OR LESBIAN. >> YEAH, THE LAW WAS IN PLACE UNTIL 1990.
IT HAD A LOT OF TRANSFORMATIONS IN BETWEEN, REALLY, 1917 WHEN IT WAS FORMALIZED IN A MANNER OF SPEAKING, UNTIL 1990.
AND THEN, EVEN SO THERE'S STILL MORAL TERPITUDE. SO, IF YOU MIGHT BE ACCUSED OF THAT, WHICH SOMETIMES BEING
GAY OR LESBIAN CAN LEAD TO THAT, YOU STILL MIGHT BE ABLE TO BE EXCLUDED. AND THEN, OF COURSE,
THE *** BAN FOR LAW, WHICH ACTUALLY WAS REPEALED IN JANUARY OF 2010. >> OKAY.
SO AGAIN, BEFORE I RUDELY INTERRUPTED YOU, BACK TO THAT CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO. >> SURE.
SO FOR ONE, THERE'S THIS ISSUE OF EXCLUSION. FOR ANOTHER, A LOT OF WHAT MY RESEARCH LOOKS AT
IS SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND COALITION BUILDING. THERE ARE A LOT OF SIMILARITIES IN THE WAYS THAT MIGRANTS
GET DEMONIZED, AND THE WAY THAT LGBT, LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER PEOPLE GET DEMONIZED.
WHENEVER ECONOMICS ARE BAD, THESE TWO GROUPS GET POSITIONED SORT OF IN SIMILAR WAYS. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS
I LOOK AT, IS HOW THOSE POSITIONS HAPPEN, AND THEN ALSO HOW COALITION BUILDING MIGHT HAPPEN BETWEEN
IMMIGRATION RIGHTS ACTIVISTS AND GAY RIGHTS ACTIVISTS. NOT TO MENTION THERE ARE A LOT OF GAY IMMIGRANTS
WHO CAN'T UNIFY, OR CAN'T COME TO THE UNITED STATES, FOR EXAMPLE, UNDER FAMILY REUNIFICATION LAWS
THAT CURRENTLY BENEFIT HETEROSEXUAL MARRIED COUPLES. SO THERE ARE A LOT OF INTERSECTIONS
THAT YOU MIGHT NOT THINK ABOUT WHEN YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THESE TWO ISSUES. >> WE REALLY SORT OF HAVE
TWO AREAS. ONE IS IN THE REALM OF POLITICS, WHEN THESE TWO GROUPS MIGHT BE SIMILARLY TARGETED,
OR COME TOGETHER ON CERTAIN ISSUES. AND THEN WE HAVE A SECOND ONE, WHICH IS MORE OF THE PERSONAL
OR THE FAMILY STORIES. WE'LL GET TO THAT LATTER ONE LATER ON, BUT I THINK ONE WAY TO UNDERSTAND IT,
IS THE VERY INTERESTING CASE OF WHAT HAPPENED IN ARIZONA IN 2006. YOU WENT TO GRADUATE SCHOOL
AT ARIZONA STATE, SO YOU WERE PERFECTLY SITUATED TO EXPERIENCE THE STATE THAT WAS HAVING BOTH
A REFERENDUM ELECTION FOR ONE OF THESE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE REFERENDA, AND ALSO HAS BECOME VERY MUCH THE CENTER
OF IMMIGRATION POLITICS, ESPECIALLY RECENTLY WITH THE ARIZONA IMMIGRATION LAW. TELL ME THE STORY OF THAT 2006
PROTECT MARRIAGE ACT CAMPAIGN. >> SURE. SO I WAS DOING MY DISSERTATION RESEARCH AT THE TIME.
I WAS RESEARCHING WITH A COUPLE OF ORGANIZATIONS IN TUCSON, ONE IS IMMIGRANT RIGHTS GROUP, AND THEN
WINGSPAN, WHICH IS SOUTHERN ARIZONA'S LGBT RIGHTS CENTER. AND DURING THAT TIME WHEN I WAS STARTING TO DO MY RESEARCH,
THERE WAS PROP 107, WHICH WAS CALLED PROTECT MARRIAGE ARIZONA, GOING TO BE UP FOR A VOTE, WHICH WOULD HAVE WRITTEN INTO
THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION, THAT MARRIAGE CAN ONLY BE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. IT ALSO WOULD HAVE BASICALLY
OUTLAWED DOMESTIC PARTNER BENEFITS FOR STATE EMPLOYEES. ALSO AT THAT TIME, THERE WERE FOUR BILLS OR FOUR REFERENDA
THAT WERE TARGETING IMMIGRANT RIGHTS. AND SO, AN ENGLISH-ONLY BILL, ONE THAT WOULD HAVE NOT ALLOWED
FOR IMMIGRANTS TO HAVE BAIL. ONE THAT ALSO WAS, IT WAS BASICALLY DESIGNED TO NOT ALLOW IMMIGRANTS
TO HAVE IN-STATE TUITION, UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS TO HAVE IN-STATE TUITION, OR TO RECEIVE HEAD START PROGRAMS,
AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. THERE'S ONE OTHER, WHICH I ALWAYS FORGET THAT ONE. BUT IN ANY CASE,
THE PROTECT MARRIAGE ARIZONA, PEOPLE THOUGHT THEY COULD WIN ARIZONA. ALL THE STATES UP TO THAT POINT
HAD PASSED THESE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACTS, OVERWHELMING. AND SO, THERE WAS THIS GROUP
CALLED ARIZONA TOGETHER, LED BY KYRSTEN SINEMA, WHO IS ONLY OUT BISEXUAL WOMAN IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE
IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA, ALSO A BIG IMMIGRANT RIGHTS ACTIVIST. SHE LED UP ARIZONA TOGETHER. AND REALLY, THE WAY THAT
ARIZONA TOGETHER USED, OR CREATED THEIR CAMPAIGN, WAS LARGELY PREMISED ON THE FACT THAT GAYS WEREN'T AS BAD
AS IMMIGRANTS, AT LEAST THAT'S THE ARGUMENT I MAKE. AND I THINK ESSENTIALLY WHAT HAPPENED IS ALL FOUR OF THESE
BILLS AGAINST UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS OVERWHELMING PASSED. MEANWHILE, IT WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT ONE OF THESE
DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACTS DIDN'T ACTUALLY PASS. OF COURSE, TWO YEARS LATER THERE WERE NO IMMIGRATION
REFERENDA ON THE BALLOT, AND THERE WAS ANOTHER DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT, AND IT DID IN FACT, PASS IN 2008.
>> WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK AND TALK ABOUT THIS. BUT IT'S REALLY A VERY INTERESTING TIME.
I THINK THAT WAS THE ONLY DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT THAT DID NOT PASS, USING THE TERM.
THERE WAS 28 STATES, AND ARIZONA, WHICH ONE WOULDN'T NORMALLY THINK TO BE THE FIRST ONE TO DEFEAT IT, DEFEATS IT.
WE'LL CONTINUE OUR DISCUSSION OF THAT, AND GO BEHIND THE SCENES WITH THE INTERSECTION OF THE POLITICS OF IMMIGRATION
AND THE POLITICS OF SEXUALTY, WITH KARMA CHÁVEZ. PLEASE, STAY WITH US ON "OFFICE HOURS."
>> THIS PROGRAM IS A PRODUCTION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON. IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS,
ABOUT THIS BROADCAST, PLEASE EMAIL THEM TO: PROGRAMMING@UC.WISC.EDU
>> WHERE OTHERS SAW LUMBER, WE RECOGNIZED A TREASURE. WHERE OTHERS SAW THE NIGHT, WE CHOSE THE STARS.
WHERE OTHERS SAW PIECES, WE UNLOCKED THE PUZZLE THAT COULD BRING THE END TO PARALYSIS AND CANCER.
SINCE 1848, THINKERS AND ACHIEVERS AT WISCONSIN HAVE FEARLESSLY SOUGHT IDEAS THAT TRANSFORMED THE WORLD.
KEEP ON, WISCONSIN, KEEP ON.
>> WELCOME BACK TO "OFFICE HOURS." WE'RE WITH KARMA CHÁVEZ, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION
ARTS HERE AT UW-MADISON. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE POLITICS OF IMMIGRATION AND THE POLITICS OF SEXUALITY.
SO, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE 2006 ARIZONA ELECTION, IT'S THIS DEFEAT OF THE AMENDMENT, AND ONE WOULD THINK
THIS IS A BIG VICTORY FOR GAY RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS. I'M SITTING DOWN TO READ YOUR ARTICLE ABOUT THIS, AND IT TELLS
THE STORY, AND IT TELLS ABOUT HOW THE REFERENDUM IS DEFEATED. I KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT YOUR RESEARCH, AND I'M THINKING
IT'S GOING TO BE A BIG CELEBRATORY ARTICLE. BUT IT'S NOT. YOU ARE HIGHLY CRITICAL
OF THE WAY THE CAMPAIGN WAS WAGED THAT DEFEATED THIS. WHY? >> WELL, I THINK IN LARGE PART
THE REASON WHY I'M CRITICAL OF THIS, IS BECAUSE IT RELIED ON SORT OF THE AGE-OLD, DIVIDE AND CONQUER TYPE OF POLITICS.
AND SO, ARIZONA TOGETHER'S CAMPAIGN HARDLY INCLUDED ANY PEOPLE OF COLOR. AND IN FACT, IT HARDLY INCLUDED
ANY GAY PEOPLE, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS AN AMENDMENT THAT WAS PRIMARILY GOING TO IMPACT GAYS AND LESBIANS.
>> LIKE ONE OF THE MAJOR ADS WAS AN OLDER WHITE COUPLE IN THEIR 70s OR 80s LIVING TOGETHER.
>> YEAH, AN OLDER, WHITE, STRAIGHT COUPLE. THESE WERE THE POSTER CHILDREN FOR THIS CAMPAIGN.
BASICALLY, GAYS AND LESBIANS WERE SORT OF LEFT OUT IN A WAY. SO ONE, IT DIDN'T ACTUALLY FOCUS ON GAYS AND LESBIANS.
BUT WHEN IT DID, GAYS WERE ALWAYS FIGURED AS NOT QUITE AS SCARY AS IMMIGRANTS. AND IN FACT, IN 2008, WHEN
THE SAME GROUP WAS IN CHARGE OF THE CAMPAIGN AGAIN FOR THE NEW AMENDMENT, PROP 102, IN 2008, THEY ACTUALLY
EXPLICITLY SAID THAT GAY MARRIAGE ISN'T NEARLY AS IMPORTANT AS ISSUES THAT WE HAVE TO BE CONCERNED WITH,
LIKE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. AND SO, EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T OVERTLY STATED IN 2006, IT WAS ALL OVER THE WEB SITE,
ALL OVER THE CAMPAIGN MATERIAL. I THOUGHT IT WAS PROBLEMATIC, BECAUSE THERE WERE PEOPLE IN TUCSON, FOR EXAMPLE, WHO
WERE REALLY TRYING NOT TO RUN THAT KIND OF CAMPAIGN, THAT WERE ACTUALLY TRYING TO BUILD COALITIONS.
NOW, THEY MIGHT HAVE LOST IF THEY HAD FOLLOWED THE ROUTE OF TUCSON. >> SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT.
AS SOMEONE WHO STUDIES SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND MAYBE DOES A LITTLE SOCIAL MOVEMENT, AS WELL. >> SURE.
>> I STUDY POLITICS, I STUDY CAMPAIGNS AND ELECTIONS. IN PREVIOUS LIVES, I'VE DONE POLITICAL CONSULTING.
I'M READING THIS QUOTE FROM KYRSTEN SINEMA, WHO WAS THE HEAD OF THE CAMPAIGN, AND WHO YOU INTERVIEWED.
AND SHE SAYS THINGS LIKE, "WE WEREN'T ASKING THEM TO GO OUT ON A LIMB AND TOUCH A PLACE
THAT WAS RAW OR NEW FOR THEM. WE JUST TOLD THEM THAT WHERE THEY WERE RIGH TNOW WAS OKAY, AND WHERE THEY WERE RIGHT NOW
WAS TO VOTE NO. AND THEN HELP THEM UNDERSTAND, IN THEIR WORDS, WHY A NO VOTE WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO HERE,
WITHOUT ASKING THEM TO STAND UP AND SUPPORT FULL MARRIAGE RIGHTS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THERE YET." AND WELL, THAT SEEMS
PRETTY STRONG POLITICAL ADVICE. >> ABSOLUTELY. AND I THINK IT WAS. IT WAS VERY EXPEDIENT
IN THE MOMENT. I THINK ONE OF THE REASONS IT WAS SO EXPEDIENT, WAS BECAUSE EVERYONE WAS FREAKED OUT ABOUT
IMMIGRATION. EVERYONE WAS CONCERNED THAT IMMIGRANTS WERE TAKING OVER THE STATE.
WE HEARD, EVERY DAY, NEW NUMBERS ABOUT ALL THE THINGS THAT IMMIGRANTS WERE DOING WRONG. THIS WAS RIGHT AT THE TIME
WHEN THE MINUTEMEN HAD JUST LAUNCHED IN TOMBSTONE, ARIZONA, IN 2005. SO THERE WAS A LOT OF FERVOR.
AND SO, IN A WAY, YEAH, IT WAS POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT, BECAUSE PEOPLE COULD BUY, SORT OF THE FACT THAT WE DIDN'T
WANT THE OLD, STRAIGHT COUPLE TO LOSE THEIR BENEFITS. >> MAKE MORE EXPLICIT TO ME THAT CONNECTION OF HOW YOU THINK
THE CAMPAIGN ESSENTIALLY DEMONIZED IMMIGRANTS. ANOTHER QUOTE FROM KYRSTEN. SHE'S NOT SAYING WE'RE GOING TO
DEMONIZE IMMIGRANTS HERE. BUT SHE SAYS, "WE ALL SAT DOWN TO LOOK AT ONE OF OUR POLLS. AND WE SAID, WELL, THE GOOD NEWS
IS THAT PEOPLE HATE MEXICANS A LOT MORE THAN THEY HATE US." WHY WAS THAT GOOD NEWS FOR HER? >> I THINK, IN LARGE PART,
THAT'S HOW POLITICS WORKS, SO IF THERE'S SOMEONE WHO'S MORE MORE HATED THAN YOU, OR IF THERE'S AN ISSUE THAT'S
MORE OF A HOT BUTTON ISSUE THAN YOURS, FOR SURE THAT'S GOING TO HELP YOUR CASE, EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT EXPLICITLY SAYING
WELL, WE'RE AGAINST ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, TOO. IN A STATE WHEN IT'S ALL OVER THE NEWS EVERY DAY,
TO NOT TAKE A POSITION ON-- AND ALSO NOT TO EVEN INCLUDE GAY PEOPLE OR GAY IMMIGRANTS IN THE CAMPAIGN AT ALL,
I THINK IT WAS AN IMPLICIT SORT OF MESSAGE. MY ANALYSIS OF THE CAMPAIGN, REALLY, IS SORT OF BY
WHAT'S ABSENT MORE THAN MAYBE WHAT'S PRESENT. BUT I DO THINK, I MEAN, I WAS FOLLOWING IN LARGE PART
THE ANALYSIS OF PEOPLE THAT I WAS WORKING WITH IN TUCSON, WHO HAD A VERY DIFFERENT APPROACH.
ACTUALLY IN TUCSON, WHERE THEY HAD A VERY DIFFERENT APPROACH, IF I'M REMEMBERING THE POLLS CORRECTLY, IT WAS IN TUCSON
WHERE THE GAP WAS MUCH WIDER IN TERMS OF PEOPLE ACTUALLY NOT UPHOLDING PROP 107. SO, I MEAN, YOU CAN SPECULATE
ON ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. BUT I JUST THINK THAT BECAUSE IMMIGRATION WAS SUCH A BIG DEAL, AND THE ONLY OTHER ISSUE
THAT WAS CREATING FERVOR WAS GAY RIGHTS, THAT THERE WAS SOME RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM.
>> PLEASE STAY WITH US ON "OFFICE HOURS." WE'RE DISCUSSING THE POLITICS OF IMMIGRATION,
THE POLITICS OF SEXUALITY. WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK AND DISCUSS HOW THERE CAN BE DIFFICULTIES
WITH DIFFERENT ALLIANCES WHEN IT COMES TO THESE TWO ISSUES. PLEASE, STAY WITH US.
>> GREAT PEOPLE IS OUR CAMPAIGN FOR NEED-BASED SCHOLARSHIP AID. IT'S THE KEY TO THE LONG-TERM WELL-BEING OF THE UNIVERSITY
AS A WHOLE. >> IN 1970, TUITION COST ABOUT $500. >> TODAY, IT'S ABOUT $9,000.
>> WE DON'T WANT UW-MADISON TO BE A UNIVERSITY THAT IS DEEMED TO BE OUT OF REACH.
>> THE GREAT PEOPLE SCHOLARSHIP GIVES STUDENTS A CHANCE TO SUCCEED IN LIFE. >> SUPPORT THE GREAT PEOPLE
SCHOLARSHIP. VISIT: UWGREATPEOPLE.ORG
>> WELCOME BACK TO "OFFICE HOURS." JOINING ME IS KARMA CHÁVEZ FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION
ARTS HERE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON. SO, KARMA, AS DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS ARE GOING ABOUT
EITHER ADVOCATING FOR DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP BENEFITS, OR GAY MARRIAGE, OR IMMIGRATION REFORM, YOU HAVE
GROUPS THAT MAY BE TOGETHER ON ONE THING, BUT NOT TOGETHER AT ALL ON THIS OTHER. THE SAME SORT OF HARD DECISIONS
THAT WERE MADE IN 2006 IN ARIZONA, ARE ALSO BEING MADE NOW, AS THERE ARE POLITICAL BATTLES FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM.
SO THE NATIONAL HISPANIC CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP COALITION, WHICH I BELIEVE IS THE LARGEST LATINO ORGANIZATION
IN THE COUNTRY, 60 MILLION MEMBERS, THEIR LEADER SAYS SAME SEX IS A DEATH KNELL
FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM. KEVIN APPLEBY, OF THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF BISHOPS, CATHOLIC BISHOPS,
HAS BEEN VERY SUPPORTIVE OF IMMIGRATION REFORM. IMMIGRATION IS HARD ENOUGH WITHOUT ADDING SAME-SEX
TO THE MIX. >> YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. THIS IS ONE OF THE CHALLENGES, BECAUSE THE RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY
HAS COME OUT SO MUCH IN SUPPORT OF IMMIGRANT RIGHTS. AT THE SAME TIME THAT THEY'VE BEEN VERY, NOT ALL OF THEM,
BUT THE CATHOLICS, FOR EXAMPLE, HAVE PRIMARILY BEEN AGAINST SAME-SEX RIGHTS. AND I THINK WHAT'S INTERESTING
ABOUT THIS, IS THAT THE SAME REASON WHY THE CATHOLICS ARE REALLY IN SUPPORT OF IMMIGRANTS,
IS EXACTLY WHY THEY OPPOSE GAYS. IT'S ALL ABOUT FAMILY VALUES. IT'S THE IDEA THAT IMMIGRANTS ARE HARD WORKERS.
THEY'RE CATHOLIC. THEY COME HERE IN MALE-FEMALE MARRIAGES, AND THEY'RE GOING TO PROMOTE THE VISION
OF FAMILY VALUES THAT THE CHURCH WANTS. MEANWHILE, GAY AND LESBIAN MARRIAGE, OR THE EXISTENCE
OF GAYS AND LESBIANS AT ALL, IS COMPLETELY CONTRARY. SO THEY SORT OF RUPTURE EVERYTHING THE CHURCH BELIEVES
ABOUT FAMILY VALUES. I THINK IT IS ONE OF THESE HUGE ISSUES THAT PUTS THESE TWO GROUPS ALMOST AT ODDS.
AND YET, OF COURSE, NOT ALL IMMIGRANTS ARE GREAT ON FAMILY VALUES. AND A LOT OF GAYS AND LESBIANS
REALLY JUST WANT TO BE LIKE STRAIGHT PEOPLE. >> AND "ALMOST AT ODDS" IS ALSO UNDERPLAYING
IT A LITTLE BIT, RIGHT? YOU HAVE ONE GROUP WHO SEES BOTH AS CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES, AND ONE GROUP THAT ONLY SEES ONE
AS A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE. >> YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM WITH THE CIVIL RIGHTS
FRAME, OF COURSE. I LIKE TO THINK OF BOTH ISSUES MORE IN TERMS OF HUMAN RIGHTS. >> WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
HUMAN RIGHTS AND CIVIL RIGHTS? >> I THINK IN LARGE PART, THE GAY AND LESBIAN RIGHTS MOVEMENT HAS BEEN ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS.
SO, WANTING ACCESS TO CIVIL MARRIAGE, WANTING ACCESS TO BE ABLE TO SERVE OPENLY IN THE MILITARY, AND THEN, EVEN
IN TERMS OF IMMIGRATION, SO THE UNITING AMERICAN FAMILIES ACT, WHICH ESSENTIALLY WOULD CHANGE THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
ACT FROM THE WORD "SPOUSE" TO "PERMANENT PARTNER," I BELIEVE IS THE WAY THE LANGUAGE WOULD BE WRITTEN,
SO YOU COULD SPONSOR YOUR SAME-SEX PARTNER. ALL OF THESE ARE ESSENTIALLY ABOUT CIVIL ISSUES.
THEY'RE NOT SO MUCH ABOUT TRANSGENDER HOMELESSNESS, YOUTH SUICIDE, THE FACT THAT PEOPLE STILL CAN
BE LEGALLY FIRED FROM THEIR JOBS IN MOST STATES FOR BEING LBGT. TO ME, THOSE ARE MAYBE MORE HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES, WHERE
PEOPLE AREN'T ABLE TO SUSTAIN THEMSELVES. IMMIGRATION IS INHERENTLY MORE A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE,
BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW. >> THERE'S NOT ONLY TENSION
AMONG LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONS, BUT IN THE COMMUNITY AS WELL. SO, SOME EXIT POLL DATA
FROM WISCONSIN IN 2006. LATINO VOTERS BROKE EVEN ON THIS. AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTERS,
GENERALLY LEFT-OF-CENTER VOTERS, OVERWHELMINGLY DEMOCRATIC VOTERS, OVERWHEMINGLY SUPPORTED THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT.
IF WE LOOK AT THE 2008 MARRIAGE AMENDMENT IN CALIFORNIA, THAT BASICALLY WON BECAUSE BARACK OBAMA
RAN FOR PRESIDENT. THERE WAS HUGE AFRICAN AMERICAN TURNOUT IN CALIFORNIA, AND THEY VOTED FOR THE DEFENSE
OF MARRIAGE AMENDMENT THAT WAS IN CALIFORNIA. VERY INTERESTING, NOT ONLY AMONG THE LEADERSHIP
BUT IN THE COMMUNITY. >> ABSOLUTELY. I THINK WHAT'S INTERESTING, AND I'M GOING TO FRAME
BOTH YOUR WISCONSIN DATA AND ALSO CALIFORNIA AS FAILURES OF THE LBGT RIGHTS MOVEMENT. BECAUSE I THINK WHAT HAPPENS
IS ALL OF THE MAINSTREAM LEADERS ARE WHITE. THEY'RE MIDDLE CLASS. THEY'RE IN SORT OF
HETERO-NORMATIVE COUPLES. THEY'RE NOT TARGETING THE AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY AT ALL.
IN FACT, THERE'S A LOT OF RACISM IN THE LGBT RIGHT MOVEMENT. AND SOME PEOPLE HAVE WRITTEN EXTENSIVELY ABOUT THIS.
AND SO IN LARGE PART, IT'S HARD TO BLAME AFRICAN AMERICANS. >> AN IMPORTANT THOUGHT. LET ME INTERRUPT YOU
FOR A SECOND. WE'VE GOT TO KICK TO COMMERCIAL. I WANT TO HAVE YOU CONTINUE WITH THAT WHEN WE COME BACK.
SO PLEASE STAY WITH US WHEN WE COME BACK TO "OFFICE HOURS."
>> THIS PROGRAM IS A PRODUCTION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON. IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS
ABOUT THIS BROADCAST, PLEASE EMAIL THEM TO: PROGRAMMING@UC.WISC.EDU
>> WELCOME BACK TO "OFFICE HOURS" WITH KARMA CHÁVEZ, FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION ARTS AT UW-MADISON.
SO KARMA, AT THE END OF THE LAST SEGMENT, YOU MADE A PRETTY PROVOCATIVE STATEMENT, THAT YOU THOUGHT MANY MEMBERS
OF THE LESBIAN, GAY SOCIAL MOVEMENT ORGANIZATIONS CAN SOMETIMES BE RACIST. >> I MEAN, I DON'T THINK
THEY'RE RACIST IN THE SENSE THAT THEY HATE PEOPLE OF COLOR. BUT I THINK THERE'S A WAY IN WHICH THE COMMUNITY TARGETS
PRIMARILY WHITE MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE. WHETHER THAT'S THE STRAIGHT PEOPLE WE'RE TRYING TO PERSUADE,
OR WHETHER IT'S OTHER GAYS AND LESBIANS IN TERMS OF REPRESENTATION. IN CALIFORNIA, FOR EXAMPLE,
THERE WAS VERY LITTLE OUTREACH TO THE BLACK COMMUNITY, OR TO ANY COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, REALLY.
SO, IN SOME WAYS, IT MAKES SENSE WHY PEOPLE WHO AREN'T EDUCATED VOTED THE WAYS THAT THEY DID. I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT
BLACKS ARE MORE HOMOPHOBIC THAN WHITES, OR ANYBODY ELSE, BUT I DO THINK THAT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN A PART OF THE MESSAGE
OF THE LGBT RIGHTS MOVEMENT. >> LET'S TURN NOW IN OUR LAST COUPLE MINUTES TO IMMIGRATION POLICY AT A MORE,
A COUPLE LEVEL, IF YOU WILL. SO, THERE'S 11,000 COUPLES IN THE UNITED STATES THAT ARE LESBIAN OR GAY COUPLES,
IN WHICH THE PARTNER IS NOT A U.S. CITIZEN. THE NITTY-GRITTY, WHY IS THAT A PROBLEM FOR THESE PEOPLE?
>> WELL, THERE'S A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO, SIMPLY CAN'T SPONSOR THEIR PARTNER FOR IMMIGRATION. SO, IF YOU'RE A HETEROSEXUAL
MARRIED COUPLE, AND IN FACT, EVEN IF YOU'RE ENGAGED, YOU CAN SPONSOR YOUR FOREIGN NATIONAL PARTNER.
IF YOU ARE GAY OR LESBIAN, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. THIS CREATES A LOT OF HARDSHIP. PEOPLE TRYING TO SOMETIMES
LIVE UNDOCUMENTED, FINDING RESIDENCE IN ANOTHER COUNTRY, YOU KNOW, SCAM MARRIAGES, ALL SORTS OF THINGS JUST TO
KIND OF GET AROUND IT AND BE ABLE TO BE TOGETHER. IT AFFECTS A LOT OF PEOPLE. OF COURSE, IT'S ONE SMALL ISSUE
WHEN IT COMES TO IMMIGRATION AND SEXUALITY TOGETHER. IN LARGE PART, WE COULD BROADEN OUT FAMILY REUNIFICATION LAWS
WAY MORE THAN JUST SAME-SEX COUPLES, AND WE COULD DEFINE FAMILY IN A LOT BROADER WAYS SO THAT COUSINS COULD SPONSOR,
OR FRIENDS COULD SPONSOR, AND IT WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE ABOUT SORT OF, THIS FAMILY UNIT THAT DEPENDS ON A COUPLE.
THERE'S A GREAT STATEMENT BY *** FOR ECONOMIC JUSTICE, CALLED "*** AND IMMIGRATION: A VISION STATEMENT," AND THEY
MAP OUT A REALLY PRETTY COOL STATEMENT THAT INCLUDES THE BENEFITS FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES, WHO HAPPEN TO BE BI-NATIONAL,
BUT ALSO IT CREATES A BROADER VISION FOR HOW THESE TWO ISSUES MIGHT BE THOUGHT IN RELATION TO EACH OTHER.
>> I'M SMILING, BECAUSE I THINK YOU WERE CHANNELING A LITTLE POLITICAL CONSULTANT HERE. YOU ARE SAYING, HEY, I WANT
TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM, AND OKAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DEAL WITH GAY MARRIAGE, WE'LL JUST SAY, YOUR FRIEND CAN SPONSOR YOU.
SO IF I WAS KYRSTEN SINEMA, WHO SAID YOU JUST WROTE THIS ARTICLE SAYING I WAS BEING PRAGMATIC,
AND SHE HEARD YOU SAY THIS? >> THERE'S A WAY IN WHICH-- I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S NECESSARILY PRAGMATIC, OR JUST SORT OF
TRYING TO RUPTURE HOW WE UNDERSTAND FAMILY, BECAUSE EVEN IF-- WHETHER IT'S GAY MARRIAGE
OR WHETHER IT'S REUNIFICATION RIGHTS FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES, IT'S STILL PREMISED ON A VERY NARROW DEFINITION OF FAMILY.
AND ALL OUR HEALTHCARE BENEFITS, AND THINGS LIKE THAT ARE ALSO PREMISED ON A VERY NARROW DEFINITION OF FAMILY.
IT DOESN'T ALWAYS SERVE THAT MANY PEOPLE. AND SO, MAYBE IT'S A LITTLE BIT POLITICAL, BUT IT'S ALSO THAT
I THINK THAT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS WE COULD BE FRAMING THESE ISSUES THAT WE'RE NOT. >> AND MORE GENERALLY,
NOT THE POLITICS OF IMMIGRATION BUT THE FAMILY SITUATIONS OF IMMIGRATION, ARE A LOT ABOUT REUNITING THESE FAMILIES, AND
ENABLING PEOPLE TO STAY MORE TOGETHER IN A COHESIVE UNIT. >> ABSOLUTELY. I THINK IT WAS IN 1965,
WHERE IMMIGRATION LAWS CHANGED VERY SIGNIFICANTLY. AND I BELIEVE IT WAS IN 1965 THAT ABOUT 74% THEN,
OF IMMIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES WAS TO CREATE FAMILY REUNIFICATION. SO SORT OF THE
HETERO-PATRIARCHAL FAMILY BRINGING EACH OTHER TO THE UNITED STATES, WHICH IS GREAT IN A LOT OF WAYS,
AND I'M NOT AGAINST FAMILY REUNIFICATION AT ALL. BUT IT DOES LEAVE OUT A LOT OF PEOPLE.
>> KARMA, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US ON "OFFICE HOURS." I HOPE YOU'LL COME BACK, AND WE'LL HAVE A FURTHER DISCUSSION.
THANKS TO ALL OF YOU FOR JOINING US TODAY. DON'T FORGET, "OFFICE HOURS" IS ON THE WEB
VIA OUR UNIVERSITY WEB SITE, FACEBOOK OR EVEN TWITTER. TAKE A LOOK AND LET US KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS.
FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON, THIS HAS BEEN "OFFICE HOURS." THANKS FOR STOPPING BY.
>> THE PRECEDING PROGRAM WAS PRODUCED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE BIG TEN NETWORK.