We predicted this rift over two months ago, knowing quite well that some so-called pro-family supporters of immigration unity will not swallow the idea of ‘comprehensive reforms:’

Advocates for gays and immigrants are clashing over a proposed immigration bill that would let gay and lesbian Americans sponsor their immigrant “permanent partners” for legal U.S. residency.

The chasm inside the immigrant rights community has led the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops — a major partner in the drive for expanded immigrant rights — to withdraw its support from a House bill to be filed Thursday that would speed up reunification of immigrants with their families.

Including the same-sex provision in the family reunification bill “would erode the institution of marriage and family by according marriagelike immigration benefits to same-sex relationships, a position that is contrary to the very nature of marriage, which pre-dates the church and the state,” the bishops said in a letter to Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.).

“The last thing the immigration debate needs is another politically divisive issue,” said Kevin Appleby, the bishops’ director of migration and refugee policy.

Another major ally, the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, head of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, called the efforts to slip gay rights into the immigration debate a “slap in the face to those of us who have fought for years for immigration reform.”

Rodriguez, who has worked with evangelical churches to build support for a broader immigration bill that would expand visa laws, said that if the same-sex language stays in, it will “divide the very broad and strong coalition that we have built on behalf of comprehensive immigration reform.”

But backers of same-sex couples contend “permanent partners” — two adults in an intimate and financially interdependent relationship — should be given equal rights under immigration law.

For some, family unity does not mean unity for all. This is intolerable.

The national DREAM Act movement is primarily women and queer-led.

Undocumented queer youth working in the movement(s) for immigration reform often feel a unique alienation—they have to confront homophobia in their immigrant families and communities while staying in the closet with the LGBT community. Ben, an ex-undocumented youth originally from Mexico, recounts many experiences that are hidden and closeted in the media portrayal of immigrant families:

My father was also physically abusive to my mother and I never felt comfortable calling the police to report him because of our undocumented status. He had gone as far as pulling a knife on her and I felt so helpless that I sometimes felt like I needed to take it upon myself to end his life. These thoughts ran through my mind since I was around 10 or 11.

I left my house at the age of 17 before I had come out of the closet because of the fear I had started to feel from my family as they started to realize who I was. Having to live on my own at a very early age because of my sexuality and then to top that off with not being able to provide for myself due to being undocumented was immensely tough.

We support Out4Immigration and all efforts to extend basic civil rights to all peoples.

The movement for immigration reform–permeated in heterosexuality–has to incorporate queer voices and politics, and not just from ‘Immigration Equality,’ which mainly advocates for gay American citizens without really questioning the problems with the conception of ‘citizenship’ — a construction imbued in routine violence. Given the experiences of a second-class queer citizenship, what should constitute gay immigration politics is an inclusive effort to recognize citizenship as a violent construct that must not be denied to those who seek it. The concept of citizen has historically evolved violently from property-owning white males to include white women, freed slaves, immigrants of various nationalities, and people from colonized islands. To oppose expanding citizenship to undocumented immigrants and LGBT partners is not only socially regressive but ignores the fact that citizenship has never been an immutable concept.

Watch the UAFA hearing here.