Same-Sex Binational Families

This chapter addresses challenges that can surface for some same-sex binational couples in the United States. Vulnerable to both immigration enforcement and social institutions seeking to deny the validity of their relationship, same-sex binational couples may be at increased risk for emotional hardship, relationship instability, conflict, and dissolution. The ramifications of divorce in binational relationships may include jeopardizing the residency status or lengthening the naturalization timeline; separation from children if removed from the United States; and potential removal to a country where one or both members in the partnership may be exposed to sexual prejudice. The chapter discusses the unique challenges that increase the risk of binational same-sex relationships ending in dissolution or divorce, highlighting the limited research on LGBTQ dissolution or divorce and the need for further research on clinical and legal interventions that could enhance the well-being of same-sex binational couples during and after relationship dissolution or divorce.

Family Matters: Claiming Rights across the US-Mexico Migratory System

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) created an immigration system favoring the immigration of spouses, children, and parents of US citizens, thereby establishing family unity as the cornerstone of US immigration policy. Despite this historical emphasis on family unity, backlogs and limited visas for non-immediate relatives of US citizens and legal permanent residents, the militarization of the US-Mexico border, punitive measures for those who enter without inspection, such as the forced separation of children from their parents at the US border, and an aggressive policy of deportation have made it more difficult for members of Mexican binational families to unify. How do members of Mexican binational families manage the hardships that result from US immigration policies that prolong and force family separation? Immigrants and return migrants alike may not be aware of their rights and the legal remedies that exist to enforce them. Structural barriers such as poverty, legal status, fear of deportation, lack of proficiency in English, and lack of familiarity with government bureaucracies no doubt prevent many migrants in the United States and return migrants in Mexico from coming forward to request legal assistance and relief in the courts. Despite these barriers, when it comes to family matters, members of some Mexican binational families can and do assert their rights. In this article, we analyze an administrative database of the Department of Legal Protection of the Mexican consular network that documents migrant legal claims resulting from family separation, along with findings from 21 interviews with consular staff and community organizations in three consular jurisdictions — El Paso, Raleigh, and San Francisco — to investigate the sociolegal processes of claims. Our investigation centers on the mediating role the Mexican state — via its consular network — has developed to assist binational families as they attempt to assert their rights and resolve child support and child custody problems resulting from prolonged and forced family separation. We find that the resolution of binational family claims in part depends on the institutional infrastructure that has developed at local, state, and federal levels, along with the commitment and capacity of the receiving and sending states and the binational structures they establish. These binational structures transcend the limitations of national legal systems to achieve and implement family rights and obligations across borders.

Storytelling as ‘unorthodox’ agency: Negotiating the 2012 family immigration rules (United Kingdom)

This article attends to the lived experience of binational families subject to the 2012 family immigration rules (FIR). It seeks to enrich the pre-existing discussions of family migration within the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom, focusing on the ‘micro-political’ experiences of those whose lives have been adversely affected by their introduction. It draws on the life writings of binational families, suggesting that a micro-political focus reveals an ongoing neuropolitical experience that traditional accounts of moral agency are ill-equipped to negotiate. The article suggests an unorthodox interpretation of agency premised on storytelling, while probing the tensions that emerge when this lived experience is framed in such a manner. It concludes by positing a series of questions relating to the value of a neuropolitical labelling of the subject and suggests a need to further engage with traumatic interpretations of harm at the intersection of citizenship rights and mobility rights.