Sexual binaries are persistent in society. Scholars argue that bisexuality, marked by sexual fluidity, complicates the reproduction of the hetero/homo divide. This article draws on archival data from multiple sources on bisexual immigrants from 1967 to 2012 to empirically test if sexual fluidity disrupts sexual binaries within the context of immigration. My findings show that instead of challenging entrenched sexual binaries, sexual fluidity helps in maintaining those boundaries. Through the process of legally coupling bisexuality with homosexuality, the exclusionary policy that denied admission to immigrants with same-sex attraction was extended to bisexuals until its repeal in 1990. However when refugee protection was expanded to include sexual minorities after 1994, bisexuality and homosexuality were decoupled, consequently denying asylum protection to bisexuals. From the standpoint of immigration policies, bisexuals are paradoxically ‘kinda’ gay but just not gay enough.
AdamBD (1987) The Rise of a Gay and Lesbian Movement, Boston, MA: Twayne.
2.
AnzaldúaG (1987) Borderlands: The New Mestiza = La Frontera, San Francisco, CA: Spinsters/Aunt Lute.
3.
BarclaySBernsteinMMarshallA-M (2009) Queer Mobilizations: LGBT Activists Confront the Law, New York: New York University Press.
4.
ButlerJ (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, New York: Routledge.
5.
ButlerJ (1993) Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’, New York: Routledge.
6.
Canaday M (2003) Who is a homosexual?: The consolidation of sexual identities in mid-twentieth-century American immigration law. Law and Social Inquiry 28: 351–386.
7.
CanadayM (2009) The Straight State: Sexuality and Citizenship in Twentieth-Century America, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8.
CantúL JrLuibhéidESternAM (2005) Well-founded fear: Political asylum and the boundaries of sexual identity in the US-Mexico borderlands. In: LuibhéidECantúLJr (eds) Queer Migrations: Sexuality, U.S. Citizenship, and Border Crossing, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 61–74.
9.
CarrilloH (2010) Immigration and LGBT rights in the USA: Ironies and constraints in US asylum cases. In: AggletonPParkerR (eds) Routledge Handbook of Sexuality, Health and Rights, New York: Routledge, pp. 444–452.
ChoJSP (2009) The wedding banquet revisited: Contract marriages between Korean gays and lesbians. Anthropological Quarterly82(2): 401–422.
12.
CollinsPH (1998) Fighting Words: Black Women and the Search for Justice, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
13.
Cory DW and LeRoy JP (1963) The Homosexual and his Society. New York: The Citadel Press.
14.
D’EmilioJ (1989) Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Identity in the United States, 1940–1970, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
15.
DaumerE (1999) Queer ethics; or, the challenge of bisexuality to lesbian ethics. In: Bisexuality: A Critical Reader, New York: Routledge, pp. 152–161.
16.
DauvergneCMillbankJ (2003) Burdened by proof: How the Australian refugee review tribunal has failed lesbian and gay asylum seekers. Federal Law Review31: 299–342.
17.
DiamondLM (2008) Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18.
EscoffierJ (1990) Inside the ivory closet: The challenges facing lesbian and gay studies. Out/Look: National Lesbian and Gay Quarterly10: 40–48.
19.
EskridgeWNJr (1999) Gaylaw: Challenging the Apartheid of the Closet, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
EskridgeWNJrHunterND (2011) Sexuality, Gender and the Law, 3rd edn. St. Paul, MN: Foundation Press.
21.
FergusonRA (2004) Aberrations in Black: Toward A Queer of Color Critique, Minneapolis, MN: University Of Minnesota Press.
22.
FoucaultM (1978) From the History of Sexuality, Vol. I: An Introduction, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
23.
FussD (1991) Inside/Out: Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories, New York: Routledge.
24.
GamsonJMoonD (2004) The sociology of sexualities: Queer and beyond. Annual Review of Sociology30: 47–64.
25.
GarberM (2000) Bisexuality and The Eroticism of Everyday Life, New York: Routledge.
26.
GirardP (1987) From subversion to liberation: Homosexuals and the Immigration Act 1952–1977. Canadian Journal of Law and Society2: 1–21.
27.
GreenAI (2002) Gay but not queer: Toward a post-queer study of sexuality. Theory and Society31: 425–521.
28.
GreenAI (2007) Queer theory and sociology. Sociological Theory25(1): 26–45.
29.
GreenR (1987) ‘Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses’ (of heterosexuals): An analysis of American and Canadian immigration policy. Anglo-American Law Review16: 139–159.
30.
GurevichMBaileyHBowerJ (2009) Querying theory and politics: The epistemic (dis)Location of Bisexuality within Queer Theory.. Journal of Bisexuality9: 235–257.
31.
HalberstamJ (1998) Female Masculinity, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
32.
HalberstamJ (2005) In a Queer Time and Place: Transgender Bodies, Subcultural Lives, New York: New York University Press.
33.
HalperinD (1995) Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography, New York: Oxford University Press.
34.
HannaF (2005) Punishing masculinity in gay asylum claims. Yale Law Journal114: 913–920.
35.
HarbeckDA (2010) Asking and telling: Identity and persecution in sexual and/or gender orientation asylum claims: Immutable characteristics and concepts of persecution under US asylum law. Georgetown Immigration Law Journal25: 117–237.
36.
HardingS (1998) Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialism, Feminism and Epistemologies, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
37.
HullKE (2006) Same-Sex Marriage: The Cultural Politics of Love and Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
HutchinsLKaahumanuL (1991) Bi Any Other Name: Bisexual People Speak Out, Boston, MA: Alyson.
39.
JagoseA (1997) Queer Theory: An Introduction, New York: New York University Press.
40.
KleinF (1978) The Bisexual Option: A Concept of One-Hundred Percent Intimacy, New York: Arbor House.
41.
KongTSK (2004) Queer at your own risk: Marginality, community and Hong Kong gay male bodies. Sexualities7(1): 5–30.
42.
KongTSK (2012) Reinventing the self under socialism: Migrant male sex workers (‘money boys’) in China. Critical Asian Studies44(2): 283–308.
43.
KornbluhF (2011) Queer legal history: A field grows up and comes out. Law and Social Inquiry36(2): 537–559.
44.
LaVioletteN (1997) The immutable refugees: Sexual orientation in Ward v. Canada. University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review55: 1–41.
45.
LaVioletteN (2003) Coming out of Canada: The immigration of same-sex couples under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.. McGill Law Journal49: 969–1003.
46.
LaViolette N (2009) Independent human rights documentation and sexual minorities: An ongoing challenge for the Canadian refugee determination process. The International Journal of Human Rights 13(2–3): 437–476.
47.
LeeEOJBrotmanS (2011) Identity, refugeeness, belonging: Experiences of sexual minority refugees in Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology48(3): 241–274.
48.
LevyS (1996) Asylum Based on Sexual Orientation: A Resource Guide, San Francisco, CA: International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.
49.
LimKF (2004) Where love dares (not) speak its name: The expression of homosexuality in Singapore. Urban Studies41(9): 1759–1788.
50.
LorberJ (1996) Beyond the binaries: Depolarizing the categories of sex, sexuality and gender. Sociological Inquiry66: 143–159.
51.
LucalB (2008) Building boxes and policing boundaries: (De)constructing intersexuality, transgender and bisexuality. Sociology Compass2: 519–536.
52.
LuibheidE (2002) Entry Denied: Controlling Sexuality At The Border, Minneapolis, MN: University Of Minnesota Press.
MastersWHJohnsonVE (1979) Homosexuality in Perspective, Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
55.
MillbankJ (2002) Imagining otherness: Refugee claims on the basis of sexuality in Canada and Australia. Melbourne University Law Review26: 144–177.
56.
MillerAM (2005) Gay enough: Some tensions in seeking the grant of asylum and protecting global sexual diversity. In: EppsBValensKGonzálezBJ (eds) Passing Lines: Sexuality and Immigration, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 137–188.
57.
MorganDA (2006) Not gay enough for the government: Racial and sexual stereotypes in sexual orientation asylum cases. Law and Sexuality15: 135–161.
58.
MuñozJE (1999) Disidentifications: Queers of Color and the Performance of Politics, Minneapolis, MN: University Of Minnesota Press.
59.
NamasteK (1994) The politics of inside/out: Queer theory, poststructuralism and a sociological approach to sexuality. Sociological Theory12: 220–231.
60.
Oslund J (1979) ‘Psychopathic Personality’: German Bewildered by Ouster from U.S. Star Tribune, June 27, 1A, 13A.
61.
ParkJS (1994) Pink asylum: Political asylum eligibility of gay men and lesbians under U.S. immigration policy. UCLA Law Review42: 1115.
62.
RandazzoTJ (2005) Social and legal barriers: Sexual orientation and asylum in the United States. In: LuibhéidECantúLJr (eds) Queer Migrations: Sexuality, U.S. Citizenship, and Border Crossing, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 30–60.
63.
RehaagS (2008) Patrolling the borders of sexual orientation: Bisexual refugee claims in Canada. McGill Law Journal53: 59–102.
64.
RehaagS (2009) Bisexuals need not apply: A comparative appraisal of refugee law and policy in Canada, the United States, and Australia. International Journal of Human Rights13: 415–436.
65.
RustPC (1995) Bisexuality and the Challenge to Lesbian Politics: Sex, Loyalty, and Revolution, New York: New York University Press.
66.
RustPC (2000) Criticisms of the scholarly literature on sexuality for its neglect of bisexuality. In: RustPC (ed.) Bisexuality in the United States: A Social Science Reader, New York: Columbia University Press.
67.
Rutchick, J (1979) Bisexual German Denied Admission to U.S., Minnesota Daily, June 27, 1–8.
68.
SedgwickEK (1990) Epistemology of the Closet, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
69.
SeidmanS (1993) Identity and politics in a ‘postmodern’ gay culture: Some historical and conceptual notes. In: WarnerM (ed.) Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 105–142.
70.
SmithDE (1990) The Conceptual Practices of Power: A Feminist Sociology of Knowledge, Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
SteinM (2010) Sexual Injustice: Supreme Court Decisions from Griswold to Roe, Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.
73.
StoneAL (2009) More than adding a T: American lesbian and gay activists’ attitudes towards transgender inclusion. Sexualities12(3): 334–354.
74.
SullivanN (2003) A Critical Introduction to Queer Theory, New York: New York University Press.
75.
SwinkA (2006) Queer refuge: A review of the role of country condition analysis in asylum adjudications for members of sexual minorities. Hastings International and Comparative Law Review29: 251–266.
76.
Udiss-KesslerA (1991) Present tense: Biphobia as crisis of meaning. In: HutchinsLKaahumanuL (eds) Bi Any Other Name: Bisexual People Speak Out, Boston, MA: Alyson, pp. 350–358.
77.
VagelosE (1993) The social group that dare not speak its name: Should homosexuals constitute a particular social group for purposes of obtaining refugee status? Comment on Re: Inaudi. Fordham International Law Journal17: 229–276.
78.
WalkerK (1996) The importance of being out: Sexuality and refugee status. Sydney Law Review18: 568–597.
79.
WarnerM (1993) Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer Politics and Social Theory, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
80.
WeissJT (2003) GL vs. BT: The archaeology of biphobia and transphobia within the U.S. gay and lesbian community. Journal of Bisexuality3(3/4): 25–55.
81.
Yoshino K (2007) Covering: The Hidden Assault on our Civil Rights. New York: Random House.
82.
YoungS (1997) Dichotomies and displacement: Bisexuality in queer theory and politics. In: PhelanS (ed.) Playing with Fire: Queer Politics, Queer Theories, New York: Routledge, pp. 51–74.
83.
ZinikG (2000) Identity conflict or adaptive flexibility? Bisexuality reconsidered. In: RustPC (ed.) Bisexuality in the United States: A Social Science Reader, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 55–60.
