Join Email List | About Us | AMERICAblog News
More about: DADT | DOMA | ENDA | Immigration | Marriage | 2012 Elections

Should HRC be working on (straight) immigrant workers rights?

| Reddit | Tumblr | Digg | FARK

There are serious questions about how far off the mission our groups should get. As I argued here the other day, I think you have to support sister movements if you want their support in turn (i.e., if we want black groups supporting marriage then we need to support black groups when they ask for our help). But at some point, you risk becoming GLAAD and the AT&T/T-Mobile merger all over again, if you don't watch it.

This from Cleve Jones, via the SF Chronicle, leaves me unsure:
Jones said progressive gay advocates have long had issues with the Human Rights Campaign for its "institutional arrogance" in not recognizing the fight for gay equality as being part of a larger social justice fight.

He pointed to the campaign's Corporate Equality Index, which, for example, gives Hyatt Hotels a perfect score for its policies toward gay and lesbian workers without noting it has come under fire for the way it treats immigrant workers.

But Jones said he thinks Griffin will begin to change that, calling him "one of the smartest people I have ever met in my whole life."
I'm not entirely sure how the treatment of immigrant workers relates to gay and trans civil rights. And I think I'd be a bit concerned if HRC spent significant money and time working on immigrant worker issues that didn't have a significant gay or trans angle to them.

Now, yes, you can argue that gay rights falls under a larger social justice umbrella.  But that's not what HRC does, or was formed to do.  Nor is it what GLAAD was formed to do.  They weren't formed to fight for immigrant rights and for every other social justice under the rainbow-colored sun.  They were formed to fight for gay rights.  And while some mission creep is allowed, and wise - adapting to the times isn't such a bad thing, within reason - you have to draw the line somewhere or else you'll no longer be a gay group and you'll end up working on everything, and ultimately nothing.

It's not enough to say that some immigrants are gay.  Some robber barons are gay too, so should we  support Wall Street?

I think back to the 1993 gay March on Washington, and its really long list of "demands":
At various moments, organizers say, the march will be supporting reproductive rights, gay rights, gun control and national health rights. It will also oppose capital punishment, mandatory sentencing and the North American Free Trade Agreement. You name the cause, this march will have it.
NAFTA, capital punishment and mandatory sentencing? Really? The list was much longer, and worse. I'm trying to find a copy, but am not having any luck - but I was there. It was a long list of non-gay non-trans demands.  The list was too long.  And too attenuated.

It's a tough call.  I don't think we should be 100% insular as it was important to get the NAACP on board marriage equality, so we should show them support in return (not for that alone, but particularly because of that at least).  But at some point, we have to respect that our gay groups are gay groups. They're not Amnesty International, representing everyone.  They're groups specifically representing gay and trans people, period.  And there's nothing wrong with admitting that fact directly, and sticking to our own agenda, within reason.

blog comments powered by Disqus