Stories of Gay and Lesbian Immigration

Together Forever?

John Hart

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• eBook ISBN: 9781317712787
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Gender Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

Share the personal stories of gay and lesbian couples who immigrated to Australia!This fascinating book examines the Australian government's innovative immigration program for same-sex couples. Covering the time from the early 1980s to 2000, Stories of Gay and Lesbian Immigration: Together Forever? offers a powerful glimpse into the gains and costs of immigration. Its twenty-year span offers insight into both immediate and long-term implications of this policy.Stories of Gay and Lesbian Immigration intertwines the personal stories of gay and lesbian immigrants, including the author, with thoughtful, detailed political analysis. This groundbreaking book analyzes the Australian government's reasons for recognizing the validity of same-sex couples. It also scrutinizes the emotional and social implications of government policies for these couples.Stories of Gay and Lesbian Immigration explores the issues immigrant same-sex couples faced, including:

• HIV/AIDS
• proving homosexuality
• migration stress
• dealing with bureaucracy
• financial dependency
• success and failure in relationshipsStories of Gay and Lesbian Immigration will be of interest to political scientists, historians of gay and lesbian culture, policymakers seeking to change immigration laws, and anyone interested in this aspect of gay and lesbian relationships.

Chapter 1

The Queer Development of Gay and Lesbian Immigration

When the international news media reported that the leaders of the two major Christian churches in Australia, the Catholic and the Anglican, had spoken out against the 2000 Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, the interest was less in what they had said—that the event promoted the homosexual lifestyle and should not be attended or supported by Sydney’s citizens—than that such a statement was felt to be necessary twenty-two years after the first parade. It appeared that what has become Australia’s biggest cultural event, estimated to bring in over 100 million Australian dollars to the economy annually, was by then so accepted that the churches, and incidentally some gays, were alarmed by how mainstream it had become. In places as diverse as London, Bangkok, and San Francisco I have seen tour operators advertising the possibilities of the Mardi Gras. Sydney’s international airport contains a “Welcome to the Mardi Gras” information counter and the parade itself has become a focal point for between half a million and a million spectators. Many people take their kids to this event. The attendance figures are to some extent dependent on the weather. For many years fundamentalist Christian church groups have prayed for heavy rain to limit the event. This has not, so far, resulted in the kinds of floods in Sydney beseeched by such believers. With groups such as politicians and gay and lesbian police joining in the parade, the event seems to have become, by the twenty-first century, a splendid example of a society’s ability to accept sexual diversity. Of course, it is gay and lesbian tourists from all over the world who are attracted to this tolerant lifestyle. Everywhere in the city, at the opera house, in restaurants, and in the streets, same-sex couples can be seen walking hand in hand, being relaxed about showing who and with whom they want to be. In November 2002 Sydney will host the Gay Games—another magnet for gay and lesbian tourists. Some of these visitors will be meeting for the first time, falling in love with Australia and/or an Australian, and wanting to stay. If they come from a few fortunate European countries, now including my country of origin, the United Kingdom, then it may be possible for them to stay together there. South Africa also provides for same-sex migration. In Canada there are possibilities for gay and lesbian couples if the relationship, and “hardship” for the resident, can be proven. New Zealand made provisions for same-sex partners and migration in 1989. However, if the overseas partner is from the United States or Asia, the possibilities are at present remote.

From 1985 until 1997, it was possible for new couples to begin their relationships in Australia or overseas and within six months apply for residency. The initial arrangement made between the Minister for Immigration and the task force contained the requirement for a four-year relationship duration before permanent residence was granted. In 1989 this was reduced to thirty months. In 1991 a new visa category of Interdependency was introduced into the migration regulations. This provision did not specifically refer to gay and lesbian couples, but both supporters and opponents understood that these were the main groups to benefit from the provision. This regulation enabled those qualified to apply for a temporary visa to enter Australia and then to apply for permanent residence on the grounds of their relationship with the Australian sponsor. They would then be granted a two-year extended eligibility temporary visa. If the relationship could be shown to be still ongoing after that time, they would be granted a permanent visa. In 1995 new regulations enabled applicants to apply overseas for a visa that would enable them to be granted permanent residence on entry to Australia. de Waal (1998, p. viii) stated that since 1991 approximately 3,000 lesbian and gay couples had lodged their Interdependency applications, both in Australia and at overseas posts. From 1997 the new conservative government placed prior-to-application cohabitation requirements of one year before both heterosexual and same-sex couples could apply for residency on the grounds of a relationship.

Conservative forces are waiting in the wings of any society. From the beginning of this process we can observe the delicacy of the timing of social reform and the presence of threats to the initiation and continuance of same-sex partner migration. There was a synthesis of a perhaps unique cocktail of alarm: nonheterosexual couples, HIV/AIDS, and Asian partners sometimes of a significantly younger age than their Australian lovers.

THE BEGINNINGS OF GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLE RECOGNITION

The Labor Government between 1983 and 1996 created the possibility of same-sex migration. It is to this period that we now look to see how such a possibility came about and the tensions and opportunities it provided for all those involved. I do mean all of those involved; politicians, bureaucrats, and applicants all had to struggle with the new concept of partner acceptance under the migration program.

It had been the policy of successive Australian governments to include in the possibilities for immigration not just the primary migrant but also their intimate partners and family members. Therefore, policymakers have had to decide who would qualify and who would not be included in such a category. Those left outside official provisions have always petitioned the authorities to join their loved ones:

I would rather sell my household furniture which will amount to about six or eight Pounds, this sum I will most willingly give to Government to lessen their expenses of sending me out to Sidney, provided they would be graciously pleased to send me by the first Ship. (Hughes, 1988, p. 133)

I am begging you Sir to act immediately in our case. We are a victim of circumstances wherein we are deeply committed to building our lives together but not able to continue to do so because the immigration laws between two countries will in a few days separate us. I submit with this letter for your consideration documents which will prove the commitment of our relationship.

These two applications are separated by one hundred and sixty years. The first was written in 1830 by the wife of a convict transported to Australia. The second comes from a letter to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, sent in 1987 from the Philippines by Greg, a male Australian citizen aged twenty-three and Elizar, a male Filipino citizen aged twenty-two. Both these submissions resulted in the authorities granting the applicants’ requests to live as couples in Australia.

For those Australians or intending migrants who become clients of the immigration department, legal advice was clear: the Government is the final arbiter of who is to be regarded as an alien. There is evidence, however, of compassionate and humanitarian attitudes being exercised by the various governments toward the chosen sexual partners of Australians during the two hundred years of European settlement.

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE SETTLEMENT OF AUSTRALIA

Same-sex relationships have been an important part of the lives of settlers since the First Fleet in 1788. The Australian characteristic of “mateship” is an example of homosocial relationships, which have been important to the structure of Australian society for two centuries. The social structure of the first reluctant settlers relating to gender had some implications for other manifestations of personal relationships. As Hughes comments,

One would naturally suppose that, in a remote colony whose proportion of men to women varied between 4 to 1 in the city and 20 to 1 in the bush, homosexuality would have flourished. So it did, especially on the chain gangs and in the outer penal settlements; but it did not leave much official evidence behind. (1988, p. 264)

Hughes (1988) also quotes that, according to sources, on Norfolk Island, there were probably 150 same-sex couples: “The natural course of affection is quite distracted, and these parties manifest as much eager earnestness for the society of each other as members of the opposite sex” (p. 271).

Same-sex relationships caused concern 160 years ago and continued to be a vexing question for policymakers. After the election of the Labor Government in 1983, the first minister to hold the immigration portfolio, Stewart West, received an internal submission that asked, “Is there any advantage to Australia in redefining the concept of family to include homosexual relationships?” (DIEA Immigration Policy and Secretariat Division, Canberra, Policy Approach to Homosexual Relationships, File No. 83/75349, June 23 1983).* The answer was then, and has remained, “No.”

However the problem has continued for succeeding ministers and their policy advisers since some migrants continue to “manifest as much eager earnestness for the society of each other as members of the opposite sex.”

My Initial Curiosity

Like the majority of the Immigration Department’s same-sex partner clients, I heard in 1985 though friends and the gay press of “the arrangement” between the Gay Immigration Task Force and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The special role the task force achieved during the Labor Government was for practical purposes to be incorporated into departmental policy. This pressure group sometimes acted as informal adviser to the minister and his department as well as advocating on behalf of individuals in Australia and overseas. Within the gay community, the group at times sought to ensure awareness of multiculturalism. The Gay (and from December 1986, Gay and Lesbian) Immigration Task Force (GITF/GLITF) provided an environment where it was possible for me to move from single migrant to partner of an applicant under the arrangement and to be a volunteer adviser to intending applicants. From this insider’s position I met someone whose experience inspired me to begin the research that eventually gained me a doctorate and forms some background to this book.

In 1987, Larry, a U.S. citizen, had been traveling around the world. In Greece he met George, an Australian man of Greek parentage. After a three-day relationship, Larry decided to come to Australia and seek residence as the partner of George, an Australian citizen. A few months later, having found that Larry was HIV positive, George threw him out. When Larry returned later, he was subjected to serious domestic violence and his Australian “friend” went on to inform the Immigration Department that their relationship had ended. Without a work permit, Larry could get only low-paying jobs. He managed to save the fare to return home to the United States. GLITF negotiated with the department for the man to leave Australia without penalty in terms of his visa status to ensure that he could later return as a visitor or migrant. He did return as a migrant and died of AIDS in Australia in 1989.

Listening to Larry in a Sydney bar telling me his painful story had filled me with curiosity about the life experiences of individuals in couple relationships; relationships which, like my own, were made possible by government policy and then had to live with all the stresses: being a couple, migration, and cross-cultural adaptation. In some sense we also had to live up to the “privilege” of achieving and then being officially recognized as being in a “good” gay relationship. I identified with Larry and George as they seemed to be people like me who realized that no one lives happily ever after. Sometimes in task force meetings and speaking with spokespersons for the group, I felt this possibility was not allowed. I interviewed one task force activist who referred to my research saying: “I hope you will find that people want to stay together in Australia because they can’t stand the possibility of not being together” (Dominic from the United Kingdom, age twenty-four). The task force was struggling to achieve equal recognition with opposite sex couples. The quality of their relationships for the purposes of migration was also under scrutiny by the government. For a political pressure group, apparent public ambivalence about the merits of their cause would not be helpful.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE TASK FORCE AND THE GOVERNMENT

We have to understand two joint aspects of immigration policy in Australia. The first is the family reunion policy and the second is the definition of family.

Government was forced to take counter balancing measures for the Italian and Greek male communities that had developed in response to the government’s labor drives. Concern for family reunion has tended to come as a government after-thought when tensions or problems loomed amongst those workers already here. However, the government has a moral obligation to provide its citizens with the opportunity for establishing and operating within the framework of family relationships. (Langtry, 1979)

What constitutes family for immigration purposes will reflect what the Australian government decides in any historical period will demonstrate its “moral obligation” in population building. For some analysts the issues about who should be allowed to migrate center around the structural features of Australian society, “Being Australian has always been defined in sexist terms. It has also been defined in racist terms” (Castles et al., 1988, p. 7). With such attitudes usually comes an unhealthy dose of homophobia.

There was a concern about the low density of the settler population in a vast new country. Also of concern was, and is, Australia’s proximity to Asian countries, especially its comparatively crowded close geographical neighbor, Indonesia. This concern was manifested again in 1999 regarding events surrounding East Timor’s vote for independence from Indonesia.

Between 1901 and 1973, what was in effect a “White Australia Policy” enabled first preference to be given to British migrants. Postwar migration policy gave the Caucasian migrants from non-English-speaking countries a second place in the Australian labor market and society. The perceived threat of preferential treatment of Australian Aboriginal people, or of non-Caucasians flooding the country, especially an influx from Asia or the Middle East, continues to be an issue when multicultural and immigration policies are addressed.

Within the migration program, the provision for family to join or accompany the chosen migrant worker has always been a controversial policy. When the Fitzgerald Committee reported they pointed to family immigration as always being an integral part of the program.

In 1986/87 some 25 percent of immigrants visaed came under the Family Immigration category. A further 50 percent or so, who were admitted on other criteria as well, had some family affiliations here. That is, close to 75 percent had family links in Australia. The social justification and emotional interests to be served by reunion in Australia of husbands and wives, young dependent children and dependent parents are clear. (Committee to Advise on Australia’s Immigration Policies, 1988, p. 64)

“In all countries of immigration, not least in Canada and Australia, family reunion has become a sacred subject which can only be handled with extreme care” (Hawkins, 1989, p. 85). Although the family connection may be observed in every category of immigration, the concept appears to be questioned by some Australians as being too large or open to abuse. The alternative of a guest-worker system has, however, caused many problems in Western Europe.

Family Reunion Policy and Nonheterosexuals

In making policy decisions in respect to family reunion, the institution of marriage is heaven sent. It is, for the present, the eventual majority practice for people choosing to live together. Two married people can be assumed to be a unit. In relationships that are not formal marriages, criteria have had to be used to determine how far elements of the relationship may or may not add up to the two persons being regarded as a couple in the eyes of the law and in economic and social policy. This evaluation of couples provides guidelines for the provision, or withholding, of legal, social security, or immigration benefits.

Where there is an assessment of eligibility and a queue for the relevant benefits, there will be the possibility of abuse and the “marriage passport” is one obvious area. In the United States, the problems of sham marriage continue to concern lawmakers and enforcers. In the United Kingdom, a ground of Primary Purpose is in force for the Home Office to assess if a marriage is entered into for the main reason of gaining residence there. In Australia, the department has a major concern to ensure marriages are “genuine” and not “of convenience.” “(An) official in Canberra estimated that in 1986/7 some 2,000 migrants gained permanent residence through marriages of convenience or de facto relationships” (West Australian, September 6, 1988, Perth). A Departmental News Release emphasized the continual theme, “There was already a wide abuse of the former spouse provisions, which included vigorous organized fraud and contrived marriage rackets, as well as one-off arrangements” (DILGEA, February 7, 1990, Canberra). In 1996 the minister for immigration was reported as being concerned about the assessment of genuine relationships. It was estimated that 10 percent of intending applicants would be affected by a tougher approach in assessing their bona fides (GLITF Gazette, May 1996, p. 5).

The Official Assessment of Personal Relationships

To make a judgment about a relationship that was not a marriage, there had to be some criteria against which to measure the doubtful union. A Migrant Entry Handbook did this: “To establish genuineness, de facto spouses need to evidence a current, lasting and exclusive relationship containing elements found in marital relationships” (4.2.16 Amendment, January 3, 1986 DIEA, Canberra). A list of these elements was then provided, for example, public recognition of the couple as husband and wife. Joint property, wills, and the duration of the relationship.

For those in heterosexual partnerships, marriage had provided a consistently speedy way to migrate without additional pre- or post-arrival moral assessment. For the past 200 years, the authorities...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• ABOUT THE AUTHOR
• Table of Contents
• Foreword
• Preface
• Introduction
• Chapter 1. The Queer Development of Gay and Lesbian Immigration
• Chapter 2. Finding Out About Couples
• Chapter 3. Success and Failure in Relationships—Who’s Counting?
• Chapter 4. Europe, North America, Thailand, and Back
• Chapter 5. Some Partners in 2000
• Chapter 6. Gay and Lesbian Relationships and Immigration
• References