It’s interesting to note how many times I’ve written about racism in this blog. When I started this blog a year ago I never thought the concept of race would become such an integral part of my writings. But as the months went by and I started to do more research and took more classes—I realized that the constructions and definitions of race has contributed significantly to my husband’s difficult immigration predicament. I also became aware of how racism operates in contemporary culture and how it has been wiped from the consciousness of white America.
It is not surprising that I have been confronted by people who deny that race is a “big deal” in contemporary American society. I have been asked, point blank, if I truly believe that race has had any influence on my husband’s case; oftentimes with an incredulousness tone in their voice that defies me to contradict what they perceive as the “racelessness” of American culture.
I am always taken aback by this question. First off, I am vocal about racial, ethnic and religious discrimination and how those factors have influenced and shaped the rising xenophobia that has gripped this nation since the 9/11 attacks. As a result, I wouldn’t think it necessary to ask this question. I fervently believe that racism, unrestrained capitalism and the resulting rise of poverty, along with white nationalism have contributed to this moral panic that has spread across this country like a biblical plaque of locusts. But I soon realized this question has little to do with interrogating my convictions and everything about the questioner reinforcing their own viewpoints. These particular questions always come from white people—and normally from those who mistakenly believe that racism is a relic carefully contained in the oubliette of America’s distant past.
After explaining my opinion I am usually confronted with the following: How do you explain previous generations of immigrants including the Poles, Italians and Irish who faced extreme prejudice and discrimination? I explain it in the same way I explain my husband’s situation. Discrimination of immigrants, whether in the past or present, is shaped by distinctions made between those who are considered “desirable’ and those that are labeled “undesirable.” One of the most influential factors determining the merit of an immigrant group attempting to assimilate into American society has always been race.
These designations are based on arbitrary definitions that include evaluations on race, ethnicity and religion. While all three factors have been used historically in this “sifting”—and continue to be utilized, I would argue that contemporary evaluations have a tendency to highlight race and religion. This makes sense in the light of the recent war on terror (aka war on Islam) and the current wave of black and brown immigrants.
Even in the historical case of the Poles, the Irish and the Italians, race was a determining factor. The definition of “whiteness”, and who could claim such a designation has altered over the centuries; shifting alongside changing social landscapes to begrudgingly include some and exclude others. Back “in the day”, it was acceptable to discriminate against the Poles, the Irish and the Italians—not only because of the perceived ethnic difference, but because they were not considered to be white; and therefore were designated as sub-human.
I recently read an article that explained this phenomenon. ( the link can be found below.) Although it’s a decent article, and deals with some of the issues I have brought up in this blog post, I do not condone the author’s proclamation that “whites”—despite losing their majority status in 2050, will still retain their privilege. Basically, the author postulates that despite all the fear mongering about whites becoming a minority, the assimilation of light-skinned Hispanics into the fold of “whiteness” will ensure that “white power” continues unabated.
What???
Absolutely-- fear mongering should abate because one group of the world’s citizens should not hold dominion over another and the retention of white privilege should cease. However, to chide fear mongers for perpetuating the myth that white privilege will end in the near future—is just ethically and morally corrupt.
Don’t mind me...I’m just trying to climb out of America’s oubliette of racism and hypocrisy.
http://www.alternet.org/immigration/147235/why_fearmongering_about_a_white_minority_in_america_is_wrong,_wrong,_wrong/
Showing posts with label America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label America. Show all posts
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Memorial #2: Farouk Abdel-Muhti
Farouk Abdel-Muhti in detentionFarouk Abdel-Muhti was a Palestinian immigrant who made Queens, New York his home. He produced radio programs that were critical of American and Israeli foreign policies. He was also out of status.
Upon being arrested at his home in Queens by FBI officials in 2002, Farouk was transferred from various detention centers, jails and prisons across the country. Transferring detainees multiple times is a common procedure for the Department of Homeland Security. The excuse made for this bizarre behavior is the significant overcrowding in detention facilities. The scope of these harsh immigration laws has made existing detention facilities burst at the seems. It is not unusual for detention facilities, designed for 300 individuals, to house 700 or more.
Upon being arrested at his home in Queens by FBI officials in 2002, Farouk was transferred from various detention centers, jails and prisons across the country. Transferring detainees multiple times is a common procedure for the Department of Homeland Security. The excuse made for this bizarre behavior is the significant overcrowding in detention facilities. The scope of these harsh immigration laws has made existing detention facilities burst at the seems. It is not unusual for detention facilities, designed for 300 individuals, to house 700 or more.
But a more insidious reason may lurk beneath the surface. Moving detainees multiple times makes it harder for family members, friends or even lawyers to keep track of or visit the detainee. Relatives are not notified when their loved ones are moved and even attorneys are not made aware their client is now incarcerated two states over. Without the support of family members, friends and legal counsel it is more likely the detainee will be deported.
The rate of arresting and incarcerating illegal aliens has expanding much faster than the contractors can build new detention facilities. These new non-violent "criminals" are often housed in county jails and federal prisons alongside dangerous and violent felons.
The rate of arresting and incarcerating illegal aliens has expanding much faster than the contractors can build new detention facilities. These new non-violent "criminals" are often housed in county jails and federal prisons alongside dangerous and violent felons.
The following quote is taken from the book Targeted:Homeland Security and the Business of Immigration by author Deepa Fernandes:
"During his two-year detention, Farouk spent eight straight months in solitary confinement in a tiny York County jail cell with no light for twenty-three hours and fifteen minutes per day. He was subject to extensive interrogation and was often denied food. He stated publicly that he was repeatedly abused, physically and verbally. On the rare occasions he was allowed to visit a health clinic, Farouk was handcuffed and shackled. After two years and extensive pro-bono support from the Center for Constitutional Rights, a federal judge ordered that Farouk be deported, charged, or released. As with so many other cases, all the government could accuse Farouk of was being out of status--for which he was treated like a criminal of the worst order." (page 89 of Targeted by Fernandes)
Eventually, after significant pressure from supporters and the hard work of his lawyers, Farouk was released in 2004. He became a tireless activist speaking for social justice and human rights across the country.
Unfortunately,this is a memorial in the traditional sense because Farouk actually collapsed and died after giving a speech in Philadelphia about human rights violations in the U.S. and Palestine. Undoubtedly, the stress and abuse suffered within the various prisons and detention facilities he was held in eventually caused the heart attack Farouk suffered from on that fateful day. It is interesting to note that he was not treated for his heart condition the entire time he was in detention.
May we, who strive to follow humbly in his footsteps, never waiver in our determination to fight discrimination and racism wherever it exists. Whether is shows it's distorted face in distant lands or right here within the land of the "free"-- may we always have the courage to speak truth to power.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
A Clarification on my "memorials" of deportees
Recently, a reader contacted me about my blog post entitled Memorial #1: Ansar Mahmood. He was unhappy with a few things about my post: specifically the use of the word "memorial". In addition, he felt I was not doing Ansar justice by putting undue emphasis on his short residency in The U.S.
The entire note is as follows:
"hate to be pedantic... but those definitions are for 'memorial' as an adjective. You're using it as a noun. Mr Mahmood was shamefully treated. But you seem to be talking about him as if he were dead. As far as we know, he's alive and well and living in Pakistan. I just don't think you're doing him justice by talking of him as though his whole life were based on residency in the USA, and now all his promise and potential have been cruelly destroyed. They haven't - they're just happening somewhere else. The loss is America's, not his."
As to his first critique, regarding the use of the word “memorial” I will admit my mistake of using the incorrect "adjective" definition. However, there is nothing inherent within either definition that states the subject of the memorial has to be dead. In fact, the noun definition reflects more closely the actually purpose of the post: to remember the life of an immigrant that was unjustly treated. This is how the Miriam Webster online dictionary defines the noun of memorial:
“1: something that keeps remembrance alive: as a: monument b: something (as a speech or ceremony) that commemorates c: keepsake, memento”
I could have chosen to use the non-descript word of "remembrance" but that has no power behind it. Memorial is a "power word", it gets noticed: simply because it is normally associated with a death and/or a tragedy. Any writer worth his or her salt knows when to use a "power word" to get people's attention. All writers are manipulators of language: some are better at it than others.
In essence, the purpose of my post was to keep the memory of Ansar alive in the collective memory. There are thousands of immigrants being deported from America's shores yearly, each with their own unique story. Each year the numbers of deportations increase. Millions of taxpayer dollars are being funneled into this expensive "cleansing" and the American people have a right to know how this money is being used and to whom it is being used against. Unfortunately, most of these deportations are done secretly and only a handful of individual stories are known, written or talked about. Changes to immigration policy will only occur if people know something is wrong. Our immigration system is clearly broken!
I am attempting to take an abstract concept--deportation--and make it personal. Deportations do not happen to ideologies and concepts: they happen to individual people. Additionally, they do not happen just to the deportee, but to the family, friends and the community at large. To think otherwise is unrealistic. Any immigrant that comes to our country forges close relationships. Once a deported individual is sent away, those ties are oftentimes severed forever.
I never intended to imply that Mr. Mahmood was dead. But there are consequences inherent in becoming labeled a deportee. These consequences can result in actually physical death and/or-- what I refer to-- as "symbolic deaths." Bear with me, I assure you that I can explain.
There are serious ramifications of being deported --even once the person arrives in their country of origin. For instance, in countries like Pakistan, Haiti and many Middle Eastern countries once the individual is escorted off the plane by American DHS officials and handed over to the homeland authorities an even worse situation can unfold. In these countries, the deportee is oftentimes taken into custody, interrogated, abused and oftentimes thrown in prison.
In Haiti, for example, the majority of native deportees suffer from exposure, untreated medical conditions and starvation in Haitian prisons. Amnesty International has pleaded with American leaders to stop the unprecedented deportation of Haitian immigrants because of the gross human rights violations in the prisons there. For most Haitian deportees, being deported from America is a death sentence.
When Khalid is actually deported to India, the DHS officers will handcuff him and escort him off the plane and hand him over to Indian officials. These officials will look at Khalid's passport and see the word "deported" stamped on the first page. A likely scenario will play out in the following way: Khalid will be taken to a locked office within the airport and interrogated about the circumstances involving the deportation. Khalid will relate the long complicated story of his conviction, the fight through the immigration judicial system, his marriage to an American citizen and at the end of the struggle—being deported.
With any luck, maybe the officials will let Khalid go. Unfortunately, many Indian deportees find themselves rotting away in Indian prisons. These unlucky deportees are those who have no family ties in India and therefore no way to pay the extortion fee imposed on them by corrupt Indian officials.
Luckily, Khalid's brother should be in India at this time. His brother secured a 10 year VISA ( a VISA that allows unlimited entrance into the United States ) and commonly travels back and forth between India and the U.S. for training purposes. Hopefully, when Khalid is actually deported his brother will be in India and be able to travel to the prison, pay any fees required and Khalid will be allowed to accompany his brother to the safety of his home. Only then will Khalid be able to pick up the pieces of his life and start anew. For some Indian deportees the scenario is not so easy.
In conclusion, I was not trying to over-emphasize Mr. Mahmood's brief residency in the United States. I will not contradict the fact that many deportees can live happy, productive lives outside of American borders. People can live a good life in various countries all over the world. Despite myths propagated to the contrary, America does not corner the market on happiness, liberty and freedom. In fact, a recent study compared the relative happiness and contentment of citizens from various countries around the world, Americans ranked well behind individuals from Scandinavian countries. I will leave it to the reader to discern why, but it’s an interesting illumination none-the-less.
Ansar, like so many poor immigrants from unstable countries, wanted desperately to come here. He dreamed of arriving in this "land of opportunity". From his meager capital he obtained a green card and came to America. He secured employment and was even able to send some money back to his relatives. By all accounts, he thrived in his new environment and was content. It is not a stretch to say that his quality of life was significantly better here than in Pakistan.
That is why immigrants risk everything to come here. It is not my aim, in this particular post, to debate whether this naiveté and optimism is justified or whether it lives up to the hype. That is a subject for a subsequent post. It is only necessary to illuminate that America is the beacon of hope and prosperity for millions of downtrodden people across the globe.
Ansar came to America in the hopes of finding a better, more stable and productive life. However, when he was deported all this was destroyed. What he experienced was a "symbolic death" that is no less devastating. His hopes, aspirations, relationships and sense of security all “died” the day he was put on the plane to return him to Pakistan.
I do not believe that Ansar would take offense to my "memorial" I feel the only way that I can do justice to Ansar is to make sure that he is remembered. Indeed, the deportation of a good hardworking man like Ansar is a great loss to America. But to downplay the devastation of deportation is doing a gross injustice to the memory-- indeed to the living, breathing individual known as Ansar Mahmood-- and to the thousands of people whose lives are destroyed by deportation every year.
To think that Ansar, or any deportee, can return to his country carefree, unscathed, and simply pick up the where they left off is unadulterated ignorance. It doesn't work that way. I will continue to write about various deportees in my “memorials” to facilitate some empathy and understanding from a public who is largely unaware of their plight. I am giving voice to the voiceless.
There is a madness to my method…er...method to my madness.
The entire note is as follows:
"hate to be pedantic... but those definitions are for 'memorial' as an adjective. You're using it as a noun. Mr Mahmood was shamefully treated. But you seem to be talking about him as if he were dead. As far as we know, he's alive and well and living in Pakistan. I just don't think you're doing him justice by talking of him as though his whole life were based on residency in the USA, and now all his promise and potential have been cruelly destroyed. They haven't - they're just happening somewhere else. The loss is America's, not his."
As to his first critique, regarding the use of the word “memorial” I will admit my mistake of using the incorrect "adjective" definition. However, there is nothing inherent within either definition that states the subject of the memorial has to be dead. In fact, the noun definition reflects more closely the actually purpose of the post: to remember the life of an immigrant that was unjustly treated. This is how the Miriam Webster online dictionary defines the noun of memorial:
“1: something that keeps remembrance alive: as a: monument b: something (as a speech or ceremony) that commemorates c: keepsake, memento”
I could have chosen to use the non-descript word of "remembrance" but that has no power behind it. Memorial is a "power word", it gets noticed: simply because it is normally associated with a death and/or a tragedy. Any writer worth his or her salt knows when to use a "power word" to get people's attention. All writers are manipulators of language: some are better at it than others.
In essence, the purpose of my post was to keep the memory of Ansar alive in the collective memory. There are thousands of immigrants being deported from America's shores yearly, each with their own unique story. Each year the numbers of deportations increase. Millions of taxpayer dollars are being funneled into this expensive "cleansing" and the American people have a right to know how this money is being used and to whom it is being used against. Unfortunately, most of these deportations are done secretly and only a handful of individual stories are known, written or talked about. Changes to immigration policy will only occur if people know something is wrong. Our immigration system is clearly broken!
I am attempting to take an abstract concept--deportation--and make it personal. Deportations do not happen to ideologies and concepts: they happen to individual people. Additionally, they do not happen just to the deportee, but to the family, friends and the community at large. To think otherwise is unrealistic. Any immigrant that comes to our country forges close relationships. Once a deported individual is sent away, those ties are oftentimes severed forever.
I never intended to imply that Mr. Mahmood was dead. But there are consequences inherent in becoming labeled a deportee. These consequences can result in actually physical death and/or-- what I refer to-- as "symbolic deaths." Bear with me, I assure you that I can explain.
There are serious ramifications of being deported --even once the person arrives in their country of origin. For instance, in countries like Pakistan, Haiti and many Middle Eastern countries once the individual is escorted off the plane by American DHS officials and handed over to the homeland authorities an even worse situation can unfold. In these countries, the deportee is oftentimes taken into custody, interrogated, abused and oftentimes thrown in prison.
In Haiti, for example, the majority of native deportees suffer from exposure, untreated medical conditions and starvation in Haitian prisons. Amnesty International has pleaded with American leaders to stop the unprecedented deportation of Haitian immigrants because of the gross human rights violations in the prisons there. For most Haitian deportees, being deported from America is a death sentence.
When Khalid is actually deported to India, the DHS officers will handcuff him and escort him off the plane and hand him over to Indian officials. These officials will look at Khalid's passport and see the word "deported" stamped on the first page. A likely scenario will play out in the following way: Khalid will be taken to a locked office within the airport and interrogated about the circumstances involving the deportation. Khalid will relate the long complicated story of his conviction, the fight through the immigration judicial system, his marriage to an American citizen and at the end of the struggle—being deported.
With any luck, maybe the officials will let Khalid go. Unfortunately, many Indian deportees find themselves rotting away in Indian prisons. These unlucky deportees are those who have no family ties in India and therefore no way to pay the extortion fee imposed on them by corrupt Indian officials.
Luckily, Khalid's brother should be in India at this time. His brother secured a 10 year VISA ( a VISA that allows unlimited entrance into the United States ) and commonly travels back and forth between India and the U.S. for training purposes. Hopefully, when Khalid is actually deported his brother will be in India and be able to travel to the prison, pay any fees required and Khalid will be allowed to accompany his brother to the safety of his home. Only then will Khalid be able to pick up the pieces of his life and start anew. For some Indian deportees the scenario is not so easy.
In conclusion, I was not trying to over-emphasize Mr. Mahmood's brief residency in the United States. I will not contradict the fact that many deportees can live happy, productive lives outside of American borders. People can live a good life in various countries all over the world. Despite myths propagated to the contrary, America does not corner the market on happiness, liberty and freedom. In fact, a recent study compared the relative happiness and contentment of citizens from various countries around the world, Americans ranked well behind individuals from Scandinavian countries. I will leave it to the reader to discern why, but it’s an interesting illumination none-the-less.
Ansar, like so many poor immigrants from unstable countries, wanted desperately to come here. He dreamed of arriving in this "land of opportunity". From his meager capital he obtained a green card and came to America. He secured employment and was even able to send some money back to his relatives. By all accounts, he thrived in his new environment and was content. It is not a stretch to say that his quality of life was significantly better here than in Pakistan.
That is why immigrants risk everything to come here. It is not my aim, in this particular post, to debate whether this naiveté and optimism is justified or whether it lives up to the hype. That is a subject for a subsequent post. It is only necessary to illuminate that America is the beacon of hope and prosperity for millions of downtrodden people across the globe.
Ansar came to America in the hopes of finding a better, more stable and productive life. However, when he was deported all this was destroyed. What he experienced was a "symbolic death" that is no less devastating. His hopes, aspirations, relationships and sense of security all “died” the day he was put on the plane to return him to Pakistan.
I do not believe that Ansar would take offense to my "memorial" I feel the only way that I can do justice to Ansar is to make sure that he is remembered. Indeed, the deportation of a good hardworking man like Ansar is a great loss to America. But to downplay the devastation of deportation is doing a gross injustice to the memory-- indeed to the living, breathing individual known as Ansar Mahmood-- and to the thousands of people whose lives are destroyed by deportation every year.
To think that Ansar, or any deportee, can return to his country carefree, unscathed, and simply pick up the where they left off is unadulterated ignorance. It doesn't work that way. I will continue to write about various deportees in my “memorials” to facilitate some empathy and understanding from a public who is largely unaware of their plight. I am giving voice to the voiceless.
There is a madness to my method…er...method to my madness.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
A White wacko talks about racism
Hopefully the title got your attention!!
I've wanted to talk about racism in my blog for awhile, but I've been avoiding the issue for various reasons. One of those reasons is because talking about race is an uncomfortable subject. It’s nearly impossible for a black person to discuss race with a white person, without suffering the consequences of being labeled a whiner, or an overly sensitive black person with a chip on his/her shoulder.
It’s a tad bit easier for me, as a fellow Caucasian, to breech the subject with white people, simply because there is a certain amount of authenticity and authority vested to me by the dominant culture--that black/brown people generally aren’t allowed. In other words-- I can talk to white people about race and discrimination without fearing the backlash of a physical or verbal assault or, perhaps even social alienation. The worst that might happen is I’ll be labeled a wacko. Ah well…what else is new??
A substantial percentage of white people don't understand that black and brown people don’t talk about racism as an abstract concept like white people do. Rather, racism is a phenomenon that they live within every day of their lives. Racism is a defining element in their experiences and they cannot just simply dismiss and ignore it once they walk out of their African American studies class. I know this because I have seen racism played out firsthand since being with Khalid.
The current news story about the African-American professor, Henry Louis Gates, who was arrested in his own home, accused of burglary and then arrested on charges of disorderly conduct inspired me to plunge into the unsettled waters of racism. If you haven’t read or heard about it yet(unlikely), here’s a link:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/07/21/2009-07-21_charges_dropped_against_harvard_professor_henry_louis_gates_jr.html
I have heard most of the controversies surrounding this incident, and have become uncomfortable with how the media is trying to downplay and soften the significance of this event. In my opinion, this was racial profiling in its most blatant form. It is faulty logic to assume, that because the officer involved taught classes about racial profiling he could not possibly be guilty of racism. A wolf in sheep's clothing can still indulge a hankering for lamb chops.
Racial profiling is not some mythological creature that appears occasionally on the silver screen, it is a living entity that breathes behind our beloved flag of liberty. Normally, racism is not a conspicuous presence within our contemporary society: as it was in earlier eras -- and while it is no longer publically condoned it has slipped begrudgingly underground. Racial acts are commonly cloaked behind disparaging rhetoric and deflected by people who do not admit that marginalization and exploitation are necessary in an ever-expanding, super-capitalistic economy.
I will give an example: Khalid and I went to Chili’s Restaurant in Syracuse a few weeks ago. As I am relating this story please keep in mind the restaurant was not at all busy! The white waitress finally came by to greet us and gave us some menus. Her greeting consisted of a very begrudging welcome to Chili’s. She basically threw the menus at us and quickly departed. After another long absence she came back and took our order. We waited another half an hour before the cook brought out our plates of food. Personally, we did not see the waitress for the rest of the evening, despite the fact that she was very cordial and accommodating to the white couple behind us. In order to get the check, Khalid had to find another waitress and ask for the manger. It was small comfort that we ate for free that night.
A white couple would not have worried that the poor service was a result of their race. A white couple would have assumed the poor service was a result of being overworked or having a bad day. They would have paid their bill, left a small tip and gone on with the rest of their day. For minorities it is not that easy. Within the background always lies the possibility that the events that unfold within their lives are caused by racism. Is the rude woman who waited on me racist or is she just having a bad day? Is the police officer who pulled me over practicing racial profiling? Did I get incarcerated because of my race? Did my co-worker get the promotion because he’s white? The questions go on and on.
There are no easy answers and oftentimes no clear cut distinctions in contemporary American society about what is racist. There are always explanations and excuses to cover up racist agendas. The only thing that is certain: racism is not dead—nor is it sleeping.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Art as immigration reform activism
I Want You... Out of the country --at gunpoint!
Art has always been an important and integral part of my life. I can not remember a time when I haven't been inspired by a color, a story, or a particular image on t.v. or housed within the sanctified pages of a picture book. Beautiful things have never failed to capture my imagination.
When I was younger, I was under the impression that art had to be aesthetically pleasing, refined and pleasant to gaze at. It wasn't until I went to Buffalo State College in 1996 that my viewpoints changed slightly. I was majoring in Art Education and took a class with Professor Mary Wyrick. She was an inspiring teacher and challenged my notion that art had to be beautiful. Instead, she made me see that art was about expressing ideas-- first and foremost. A piece of artwork was able to transcend time and place and speak to people on multiple levels all at once. The artist, with a mere flick of a brush could express the same nuance that would take the writer volumes.
Although I realized that art was about ideas, I was still painfully ignorant about the power of art and its ability to challenge ingrained ideas and social mores. Until recently, I had never acknowledged this power. I took a class at Hamilton College last Fall semester entitled Feminist Visual Culture. Through viewing works by artists such as: Judy Chicago, Ghada Amer, Ana Mendieta, Cindy Sherman, Shirin Neshat, and Carolee Schneemann, I realized that art had the power, over time, to create subtle shifts in social consciousness.
Feminist art is not about being "pretty", "conforming" or "safe". Instead, much of it is meant to be "challenging", "controversial" and "activist". This is what makes it dynamic and a catalyst for social and political change. People can become complacent, comfortable and desensitized to their environment: even if that environment is stagnant, corrupt and unhealthy. It takes a shock to the system to get them to wake up.
With that goal in mind, I have started to design a series of art pieces centered around immigration reform. Eventually I will have enough works to show in an exhibit. The two pieces at the top of this page are part of this series. I cannot think of anything more controversial than using the iconic images of Uncle Sam and Lady Liberty to illustrate the irony and discrimination of contemporary U.S. immigration policies.
I hope my writings and artwork will inspire a change in someone's thinking regarding immigrants rights and the need for immigration reform-- and as a result-- changes will be made . This hope gives me power and optimism and sustains me throughout this whole ordeal. Without this hope there is nothing.
Monday, July 20, 2009
A Pleasant Diversion
Since I met Khalid in 2005, we have taken occasional short trips throughout New York State. Despite the precariousness of Khalid’s current immigration status and the obvious day to day angst we experience we have managed to enjoy life and take a few short excursions this summer.Khalid says it’s important for us to have something to look forward to while in the midst of this immigration nightmare. Even though we never go anyplace fancy, and don’t spend a lot of money the benefits we accrue from these short trips are immeasurable. As a bonus, we get to explore the wonders of our own backyard. As R.E.M. sang in the 80's "Stand in the place where you live."
Until meeting Khalid, I never really knew how beautiful, interesting and unusual New York State is. There are many lovely and extraordinary places to explore, including The Genesee Country Village and Museum, Sonnenburg Gardens and The Farmer’s Museum.
One of the nicest places we’ve visited this summer is Sodus Point, New York. It is near Oswego and located right on Lake Ontario: one the most beautiful lakes in the world. Not that I am biased or anything. I had never heard of this village before meeting Khalid, and without him I may have never discovered what has become one of my favorite places.
Sodus Point consists of a quaint little village on Lake Ontario with wonderful cafes and beautiful vistas. There is a large park that consists of various eateries, beaches, a playground for children, and a large pier with a little lighthouse at the end. The walk to the lighthouse is very nice, however--if you go there beware of rogue waves that cascade over the pier walls and prepare for gusty winds!
While walking on the pier my eyes began to play tricks on me because the visual sensation was akin to being near the ocean. Lake Ontario is so large that you cannot see the other side of the shoreline. The water just fades into the horizon making it appear that you are near the sea and not just a mere lake.
After spending a significant time on the pier and witnessing Khalid’s meager luck at fishing we decided to take a jaunt to The Sodus Point Lighthouse which is located on 7606 N. Ontario Street. The gardens are immaculate and obviously well preened. Many weddings have taken place at this picturesque juncture, with arbors adorned with vines and flowers, mounds of hostas, lilies, and Russian sage all strategically placed in front of the beautiful backdrop of Lake Ontario.
In addition to the beach, pier and the lighthouse there are many beautiful houses in Sodus Point. One of my favorites is a pale yellow and pink Victorian painted lady. If I ever owned a Victorian house this would be the one. I absolutely love the colors and the location. I can see myself sipping pink lemonade on the attached covered gazebo and reading a book--or blogging! It's a nice dream... There is a beautiful B&B in Sodus Point called The Carriage House. It is a short distance from the lighthouse. I plan on scheduling a stay there for Khalid and I during a weekend in early September. A few days of peace and relaxation will be wonderful and quite necessary before we have to travel to Albany in October!
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Shame and hypocrisy
There are a number of English words that I hate. For obvious reasons, "deportation" is one of those words. I also dislike the words "racism", "misogyny", "war" and "access". I'm sure its obvious why I hate the first three words, However, you are probably stymied by the word "access". Why would someone hate the word access? It's quite simple , I use the word fifty times a week in my job at the library, and can never remember how to spell it. I wrote it three times in this paragraph and spelled it wrong all three times. Thank Heaven's for spell check!
But there's another word that tops my list for the most distasteful -- and that is "shame". Shame and I have an intimate relationship. There was a lot of emphasis on "perfection" in the household I grew up in. There was a clear and distinct "wrong way" to do something and a "right way". This affected every activity from talking to an elder, washing the dishes and mowing the lawn. Something was right or it was wrong. Grey areas did not exist. I was always left guessing as how to do things the "right" way. Some things were easy to figure out, such as: don't hit anyone, don't pull the cat's tail, don't touch the stove, etc. But the "indistincts"-- the situations that are predominantly detached from moral or safety considerations and can be approached in a myriad of creative ways--those are the situations that perplexed me and caused me to feel shame. It also didn't help that the correct ways were always in a state of flux.
On the other hand, my parents seemed to know the absolute correct way to handle these situations and oftentimes I got the impression that I handled them the wrong way. The idea that dominated my household was if one veered even slightly from the true and correct path than disaster was imminent.
I do not think that my household was unusual in this strive for perfection. The idea of perfection and piousness is intricately woven into the fabric of American life. Blame our Puritan beginnings if you need an explanation. However, there is an inherent contradiction to all this perfection seeking. Far too often, this perfection and righteousness is only reserved for certain segments of the population.The wealthy and powerful are exempt from these intrusive and stifling restriction as they are free to exploit, demean and oppress millions of people all over the world, while poor, working class and minority populations are forced to conform to a unrealistic conception of morality and perfection.
I witness my husband struggling to deal with the negative affects of shame because of the immigration nightmare he is immersed in. The excessive conviction, not being familiar with American laws, the time spent in detention, and the deportation mandate are all factors that have caused shame. My husband has dealt with this emotion in a positive manner and has never allowed himself to wallow in self-pity, place blame or get angry.
But shame can work in insidious ways within the human psyche and no mater how constructively you think you are handling it it can become unhealthy. Early on, my husband and I had adapted to this shame by withdrawing: withdrawing from family and friends-- in an attempt to mask it . If we don't talk about, don't admit what’s going on we can forget it. But, it doesn't work this way.
Both my husband and I are extremely private people. Not because we have something to hide, but because that is how we were brought up and how our brains are wired. We are both devote introverts and absolutely abhor being the center of attention. So, its quite ironic that we should both be at the apex of an immigration judicial case that has caused a certain amount of controversy and frustration for the U.S. government. I oftentimes catch myself thinking about how often our names have come up within the bolted doors of Homeland Security, a senator's office or even possibly the Oval office --and shudder. There resides nothing within my -- my husband's personality or lifestyle that should have elicited such attention. Regardless of whether we wanted it or not--deserved it or not, we have the attention of Homeland Security.
Eventually, I grew tired of being rendered mute, frozen in shame and decided to speak about it: at work, at immigration conferences, with friends and with anyone who would listen. I even got over my substantial fear of public speaking and starting talking about it in college classrooms and conferences. In the beginning; my goal was distinct: to educate people about the current wave of xenophobia that is sweeping the nation and obtain some help for my husband.
But recently it has shifted slightly. Although I still want to educate people and encourage people to support immigration reform; while also helping my husband, I also feel the necessity to silence the shame that hovers menacingly in the background of our lives.
According to the U.S. immigration judicial system, the night my husband was threatened in 1993 he should have collapsed passively to the asphalt and let the individuals who menacingly approached him hit and beat and perhaps even kill him. This, in their eyes, would have been the "correct" and "righteous" solution to my husband's situation. This is nonsense. The natural reaction of any human to a life threatening situation is self preservation and individuals thus threatened will find any way to survive.
But, according to the U.S. government, apparently minorities and immigrants aren't granted this right.
But there's another word that tops my list for the most distasteful -- and that is "shame". Shame and I have an intimate relationship. There was a lot of emphasis on "perfection" in the household I grew up in. There was a clear and distinct "wrong way" to do something and a "right way". This affected every activity from talking to an elder, washing the dishes and mowing the lawn. Something was right or it was wrong. Grey areas did not exist. I was always left guessing as how to do things the "right" way. Some things were easy to figure out, such as: don't hit anyone, don't pull the cat's tail, don't touch the stove, etc. But the "indistincts"-- the situations that are predominantly detached from moral or safety considerations and can be approached in a myriad of creative ways--those are the situations that perplexed me and caused me to feel shame. It also didn't help that the correct ways were always in a state of flux.
On the other hand, my parents seemed to know the absolute correct way to handle these situations and oftentimes I got the impression that I handled them the wrong way. The idea that dominated my household was if one veered even slightly from the true and correct path than disaster was imminent.
I do not think that my household was unusual in this strive for perfection. The idea of perfection and piousness is intricately woven into the fabric of American life. Blame our Puritan beginnings if you need an explanation. However, there is an inherent contradiction to all this perfection seeking. Far too often, this perfection and righteousness is only reserved for certain segments of the population.The wealthy and powerful are exempt from these intrusive and stifling restriction as they are free to exploit, demean and oppress millions of people all over the world, while poor, working class and minority populations are forced to conform to a unrealistic conception of morality and perfection.
I witness my husband struggling to deal with the negative affects of shame because of the immigration nightmare he is immersed in. The excessive conviction, not being familiar with American laws, the time spent in detention, and the deportation mandate are all factors that have caused shame. My husband has dealt with this emotion in a positive manner and has never allowed himself to wallow in self-pity, place blame or get angry.
But shame can work in insidious ways within the human psyche and no mater how constructively you think you are handling it it can become unhealthy. Early on, my husband and I had adapted to this shame by withdrawing: withdrawing from family and friends-- in an attempt to mask it . If we don't talk about, don't admit what’s going on we can forget it. But, it doesn't work this way.
Both my husband and I are extremely private people. Not because we have something to hide, but because that is how we were brought up and how our brains are wired. We are both devote introverts and absolutely abhor being the center of attention. So, its quite ironic that we should both be at the apex of an immigration judicial case that has caused a certain amount of controversy and frustration for the U.S. government. I oftentimes catch myself thinking about how often our names have come up within the bolted doors of Homeland Security, a senator's office or even possibly the Oval office --and shudder. There resides nothing within my -- my husband's personality or lifestyle that should have elicited such attention. Regardless of whether we wanted it or not--deserved it or not, we have the attention of Homeland Security.
Eventually, I grew tired of being rendered mute, frozen in shame and decided to speak about it: at work, at immigration conferences, with friends and with anyone who would listen. I even got over my substantial fear of public speaking and starting talking about it in college classrooms and conferences. In the beginning; my goal was distinct: to educate people about the current wave of xenophobia that is sweeping the nation and obtain some help for my husband.
But recently it has shifted slightly. Although I still want to educate people and encourage people to support immigration reform; while also helping my husband, I also feel the necessity to silence the shame that hovers menacingly in the background of our lives.
According to the U.S. immigration judicial system, the night my husband was threatened in 1993 he should have collapsed passively to the asphalt and let the individuals who menacingly approached him hit and beat and perhaps even kill him. This, in their eyes, would have been the "correct" and "righteous" solution to my husband's situation. This is nonsense. The natural reaction of any human to a life threatening situation is self preservation and individuals thus threatened will find any way to survive.
But, according to the U.S. government, apparently minorities and immigrants aren't granted this right.
Should my husband feel ashamed about what he did that night. Shame...no not at all. Maybe regret...but not shame. He did what he needed to do in order to survive. Should the U.S. government feel shame regarding the horrible way they have treated my husband? Absolutely-- without hesitation-- and don't waste a minute.
By the way-- another English word I despise is the word "hypocrisy".
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The Perfect Immigrant
My grandfather was an immigrant. His name was Garnet Higgins and he was an important man. Of course, important is a relative word. To be specific--he was an important man within the confines of the little town of Sauquoit, New York and the surrounding rural area. You see, he was the only doctor within miles who still made house calls. A doctor who made house calls well into the 1960's was a rarity, much like a precious jewel—hence the name Garnet. In addition, he was one of the few doctors who tended to the poor immigrants, farmers and disabled in the area; regularly accepting produce, eggs and the occasional chicken as "payment" for his services. As a young girl, my mother fondly remembers seeing stacks of food piled behind the pantry doors, given in appreciation for services my grandfather provided.
Even today, when I mention my grandfather’s name in a large group of elderly people there are inevitably some who remember him and speak of him fondly. Just by being his granddaughter my social prestige is elevated within any group that recalls his name. It is astounding to me, that 42 years after his death, people still remember him vividly and describe him as a kindhearted, respectful, unselfish and elegant gentleman.
But there was a dark side to my grandfather. Despite being a personable, kind, and a capable doctor, he was also an alcoholic. He never drank while he was working, but after a long day of taking care of anxious mothers, colicky babies, the abused, infirm and chronically ill, he would seek sanctuary within the walls of a local bar. Sometimes he would not come home to his wife and three daughters until late at night when everyone was asleep.
Why did he turn to alcohol? I have no clear answers. Obviously, it wasn't something the family was interested in exploring. Alcoholism, along with a host of other personal vices, is veiled behind the facade of polite society. Perhaps he was trying to blunt the dissatisfaction he felt for a career he had no passion for. His parents wanted him to go to medical school, but Garnet wanted to do something more creative. By all accounts, he was an accomplished classical pianist. He had dreams of touring the world and playing his beloved music in front of appreciative audiences, celebrities and world leaders. Unfortunately, his parents thought such an aspiration was impractical and coerced him into going to medical school in the United States.
Maybe he was unhappy in his home life. After taking care of numerous people in the community maybe it was just too much to come home and deal with the needs of a demanding wife and three young daughters. There are a million possible reasons for alcoholism.
Although my grandfather was a good man and a productive member of the community-- he was not perfect. No one is. Each of us have done reckless, stupid, immoral and hurtful things or had to make tough choices that go against the mores of society. However, within this contemporary rhetoric about immigration reform there is a lot of talk about what kind of immigrants deserve to become a part of American life. Unfortunately, this definition is a narrow one and not many immigrants—or even American citizens-- would fit into.
These "perfect immigrants" are illusory constructs. They do not exist. No immigrant is free of "complications". An immigrant's life is a series of vulnerabilities, hardships and marginalization. These are intensified if the immigrant has dark skin, speaks a different language, or comes from a non-European culture. In order to survive and provide for their families some immigrants are forced to make hard decisions that put them at odds with the law: laws that are unnecessarily harsh, oftentimes arbitrary and always contradictory. This includes immigrants who cross the border in order to make a living wage, are compelled to join their relatives in the States without inspection or asylum seekers who buy forged documents to enter the United States-- because if they used their own identities the government’s they are fleeing from would likely catch, imprison and kill them. All of these instances are considered crimes within the U.S. immigration judicial system and considered deportable offenses regardless of any mitigating circumstances.
Based on these stringent guidelines, it is quite possible that if my grandfather lived in today’s American society he would be considered an imperfect immigrant and would be deported. All the good he did as a physician, all the positive works he did in the community would be rendered irrelevant. Instead of being an important and intregal member of American society, he would have become disposable.
Even today, when I mention my grandfather’s name in a large group of elderly people there are inevitably some who remember him and speak of him fondly. Just by being his granddaughter my social prestige is elevated within any group that recalls his name. It is astounding to me, that 42 years after his death, people still remember him vividly and describe him as a kindhearted, respectful, unselfish and elegant gentleman.
But there was a dark side to my grandfather. Despite being a personable, kind, and a capable doctor, he was also an alcoholic. He never drank while he was working, but after a long day of taking care of anxious mothers, colicky babies, the abused, infirm and chronically ill, he would seek sanctuary within the walls of a local bar. Sometimes he would not come home to his wife and three daughters until late at night when everyone was asleep.
Why did he turn to alcohol? I have no clear answers. Obviously, it wasn't something the family was interested in exploring. Alcoholism, along with a host of other personal vices, is veiled behind the facade of polite society. Perhaps he was trying to blunt the dissatisfaction he felt for a career he had no passion for. His parents wanted him to go to medical school, but Garnet wanted to do something more creative. By all accounts, he was an accomplished classical pianist. He had dreams of touring the world and playing his beloved music in front of appreciative audiences, celebrities and world leaders. Unfortunately, his parents thought such an aspiration was impractical and coerced him into going to medical school in the United States.
Maybe he was unhappy in his home life. After taking care of numerous people in the community maybe it was just too much to come home and deal with the needs of a demanding wife and three young daughters. There are a million possible reasons for alcoholism.
Although my grandfather was a good man and a productive member of the community-- he was not perfect. No one is. Each of us have done reckless, stupid, immoral and hurtful things or had to make tough choices that go against the mores of society. However, within this contemporary rhetoric about immigration reform there is a lot of talk about what kind of immigrants deserve to become a part of American life. Unfortunately, this definition is a narrow one and not many immigrants—or even American citizens-- would fit into.
These "perfect immigrants" are illusory constructs. They do not exist. No immigrant is free of "complications". An immigrant's life is a series of vulnerabilities, hardships and marginalization. These are intensified if the immigrant has dark skin, speaks a different language, or comes from a non-European culture. In order to survive and provide for their families some immigrants are forced to make hard decisions that put them at odds with the law: laws that are unnecessarily harsh, oftentimes arbitrary and always contradictory. This includes immigrants who cross the border in order to make a living wage, are compelled to join their relatives in the States without inspection or asylum seekers who buy forged documents to enter the United States-- because if they used their own identities the government’s they are fleeing from would likely catch, imprison and kill them. All of these instances are considered crimes within the U.S. immigration judicial system and considered deportable offenses regardless of any mitigating circumstances.
Based on these stringent guidelines, it is quite possible that if my grandfather lived in today’s American society he would be considered an imperfect immigrant and would be deported. All the good he did as a physician, all the positive works he did in the community would be rendered irrelevant. Instead of being an important and intregal member of American society, he would have become disposable.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
What all this means for us...
As a result of this legal labyrinth my husband is considered inadmissible which means he is unable to adjust his status to legal permanent resident. Even though he is not deportable based on the conviction, through the stealthy flick of a magic wand the immigration judge determined he was deportable based on his VISA overstay. That is what his deportation mandate says: "deportable due to overstay violation." He can't rectify his VISA overstay because he is inadmissible based on his "crime" (i.e attempt at self preservation) which is considered a "particularly serious crime". It goes around in a circle: overstay----particularly serious crime---denied asylum---inadmissible---can't adjust status--overstay, etc: with no way to get out of the loop.
I recently spoke to a reporter from California who was flabbergasted that he was being deported based on an overstay violation yet he was married to an American citizen. Apparently, she is familiar with a lot of Mexican immigrant cases in which the individuals had overstayed their VISA's but had been allowed to stay because they are married to U.S. citizens. I had no explanations for her, other than the circle metaphor I wrote about in the previous paragraph.
She kept asking if he had ever left the United States and tried to re-enter without inspection. I told her "no" at least three times. And then she couldn't believe that he was being deported based on overstay and not on the conviction. I explained to her that the one conviction of reckless endangerment is not a deportable offense. I told her I would be happy to send copies of official documents that corroborate what I was saying. At the end of the conversation she said that his case is unlike any she has ever encountered and that basically it was too complicated for her but she would pass the story onto a co-worker in New York.
The honest truth about Khalid's situation is it has not followed any predictable or standard format for immigration cases. I believe the reason for this is because he is Muslim and has dark skin. I have done enough research and read enough books to confirm my hypothesis. Despite the experiences of the reporter in California, there are numerous cases of Muslim men, married to American citizens, who have been deported based on overstay alone. Oftentimes, the man has not overstayed and is a legal permanent resident, or has a green card pending but is deported anyway. There is a documentary entitled Out of Status that outlines just such a case. If you can get it I recommend viewing it--it will knock your socks off.
Khalid was simply at the wrong place (U.S.) at the wrong time (2001)and was caught up in the moral panic that ensued against Muslims shortly after 9/11. Based on his name, where he came from and his religion--and not on who he actually was-- he was labelled as a possible terrorist. When Homeland Security found out otherwise it was too late. The damage had been done, too many mistakes had already been made and the case had gone too far for them to admit they were wrong. The cards were stacked against Khalid the first time he went before an immigration judge. Once he was deemed deportable it did not matter how much money Khalid spent or what his lawyers said or tried to undue, he would never be able to shake that horrible label.
As far as lawyers go, they have been impotent at best. I honestly don't think most immigration lawyers have the knowledge or appropriate experience to deal with a case as complex as Khalid's. We have been told different things from different lawyers on what Khalid's status as inadmissible means. Some have told us that he cannot file his waivers or the paperwork that would allow him to adjust his status to that of legal permanent resident here in the United States. Instead, he would have to travel to India and file the paperwork with the Indian consulate. Then the State department would have the option of denying it and making Khalid wait another 1-3 years.
Yet, another lawyer said that because Homeland Security misplaced his passports he does have the option of filing for an adjustment of status. But it would be a long shot. A better option would be to hire a lawyer to overturn the conviction. Of course, this would require excessive amounts of money, that honestly, we just don't have.
Another possibility; and by the way, this is not coming from a lawyer but rather a personal suspicion (not unreasonable in light of how difficult my husband's case has been): the State department could refuse to let him back in the country at all. This is despite the fact that he qualifies for a waiver stating he is eligible because it has been over 15 years since the conviction. Mercy, do the complications ever end???
The few positive aspects of all this include the following: Khalid came to the States legally, has a social security number, a work permit, has been paying taxes, plus he’s married to a U.S. citizen. This should work in our favor! Because of these factors he should not be barred from re-entering the normal 10-20 years undocumented immigrants normally are(immigrants who enter without papers and/or without inspection). But then again—his case has not followed standard procedures: so it is nearly impossible to predict what will happen.
So..what does this all mean for us? We are kept guessing at what our future holds. We cannot make plans to buy a house or have a family. We have to show up at Homeland Security at intervals of time, scheduled at their discretion. It could be monthly or every three months. We cannot go away on vacation outside of New York for more than 3 days without notifying Homeland Security. It's possible our phones are being monitored. We are living in a soft cage--but a cage none-the-less. In essence, what all this means is we cannot really plan our future because we don't know if we have one.
I recently spoke to a reporter from California who was flabbergasted that he was being deported based on an overstay violation yet he was married to an American citizen. Apparently, she is familiar with a lot of Mexican immigrant cases in which the individuals had overstayed their VISA's but had been allowed to stay because they are married to U.S. citizens. I had no explanations for her, other than the circle metaphor I wrote about in the previous paragraph.
She kept asking if he had ever left the United States and tried to re-enter without inspection. I told her "no" at least three times. And then she couldn't believe that he was being deported based on overstay and not on the conviction. I explained to her that the one conviction of reckless endangerment is not a deportable offense. I told her I would be happy to send copies of official documents that corroborate what I was saying. At the end of the conversation she said that his case is unlike any she has ever encountered and that basically it was too complicated for her but she would pass the story onto a co-worker in New York.
The honest truth about Khalid's situation is it has not followed any predictable or standard format for immigration cases. I believe the reason for this is because he is Muslim and has dark skin. I have done enough research and read enough books to confirm my hypothesis. Despite the experiences of the reporter in California, there are numerous cases of Muslim men, married to American citizens, who have been deported based on overstay alone. Oftentimes, the man has not overstayed and is a legal permanent resident, or has a green card pending but is deported anyway. There is a documentary entitled Out of Status that outlines just such a case. If you can get it I recommend viewing it--it will knock your socks off.
Khalid was simply at the wrong place (U.S.) at the wrong time (2001)and was caught up in the moral panic that ensued against Muslims shortly after 9/11. Based on his name, where he came from and his religion--and not on who he actually was-- he was labelled as a possible terrorist. When Homeland Security found out otherwise it was too late. The damage had been done, too many mistakes had already been made and the case had gone too far for them to admit they were wrong. The cards were stacked against Khalid the first time he went before an immigration judge. Once he was deemed deportable it did not matter how much money Khalid spent or what his lawyers said or tried to undue, he would never be able to shake that horrible label.
As far as lawyers go, they have been impotent at best. I honestly don't think most immigration lawyers have the knowledge or appropriate experience to deal with a case as complex as Khalid's. We have been told different things from different lawyers on what Khalid's status as inadmissible means. Some have told us that he cannot file his waivers or the paperwork that would allow him to adjust his status to that of legal permanent resident here in the United States. Instead, he would have to travel to India and file the paperwork with the Indian consulate. Then the State department would have the option of denying it and making Khalid wait another 1-3 years.
Yet, another lawyer said that because Homeland Security misplaced his passports he does have the option of filing for an adjustment of status. But it would be a long shot. A better option would be to hire a lawyer to overturn the conviction. Of course, this would require excessive amounts of money, that honestly, we just don't have.
Another possibility; and by the way, this is not coming from a lawyer but rather a personal suspicion (not unreasonable in light of how difficult my husband's case has been): the State department could refuse to let him back in the country at all. This is despite the fact that he qualifies for a waiver stating he is eligible because it has been over 15 years since the conviction. Mercy, do the complications ever end???
The few positive aspects of all this include the following: Khalid came to the States legally, has a social security number, a work permit, has been paying taxes, plus he’s married to a U.S. citizen. This should work in our favor! Because of these factors he should not be barred from re-entering the normal 10-20 years undocumented immigrants normally are(immigrants who enter without papers and/or without inspection). But then again—his case has not followed standard procedures: so it is nearly impossible to predict what will happen.
So..what does this all mean for us? We are kept guessing at what our future holds. We cannot make plans to buy a house or have a family. We have to show up at Homeland Security at intervals of time, scheduled at their discretion. It could be monthly or every three months. We cannot go away on vacation outside of New York for more than 3 days without notifying Homeland Security. It's possible our phones are being monitored. We are living in a soft cage--but a cage none-the-less. In essence, what all this means is we cannot really plan our future because we don't know if we have one.
Khalid's Life: Part II
When Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990, Khalid’s family fled their home and left everything behind. Family members scattered to various countries seeking safety. One sister eventually went back to Kuwait after several years only to find the family’s home destroyed by heavy Iraqi artillery.
As a result of the war his father had lost his job and could no longer finance Khalid’s education. Consequently, Khalid was left without a homeland to return to and the grim prospect of dropping out of college to fend for himself as best he could. His father, fearing for his son’s safety, encouraged Khalid to stay in the United States, at least until there was a stable home to return to. That time never came.
In 1991 he moved from Oklahoma to Utica, New York. While in Utica, he obtained employment as a taxi driver. However, Khalid soon realized that working as a taxi driver in Utica in the early 1990’s was a hazardous profession. Many taxi drivers were assaulted and robbed and there was at least one documented fatality.
At 12:30 on a summer night in 1993, while filling out some paperwork in his cab, he was threatened by four individuals: individuals that Khalid felt meant him physical harm.
In order to defend himself he shot a gun into the air. Unfortunately, Khalid was only familiar with Oklahoma’s permissive gun laws and was not aware that New York state required guns to be registered. Regardless, his intention was never to hurt anyone; he merely wanted to scare them away. Indeed, no one was hurt, nor was any property damaged. The police report confirms that he was approached and harassed by a group of people-- two of whom had previous convictions. Ultimately, this information was disregarded but significance was attached to the firing of an unregistered gun.
He fully cooperated with the police but despite this he was arrested and taken into custody. When the District Attorney agreed to lower the charges to 3rd degree reckless endangerment, a minor infraction that did not result in jail time, but the presiding judge refused to take the plea. Thankfully, the gun violation was dropped but my husband was charged with 1st degree reckless endangerment. He served 4 months of his 6 month sentence due to good behavior.
After his release, Khalid was looking forward to putting the conviction behind him. Unfortunately, fate had other plans. After 9/11, fear seeped into the dark crevices in American’s psyches and secured its predatory talons into our quaking flesh. Consequently, many Americans concluded if a few extremists can be callous enough to take innocent lives, than by extension, all Muslims must be dangerous. Unfortunately, this is an assumption based on fear and ignorance and has been exploited by American leaders to expand their own Imperialistic agenda, and is not based on empirical fact.
In retribution, the United States government began a systematic and intense operative in removing Muslim and Arab immigrants from this country. Although many were in the United States illegally, the assault was also felt by legal immigrants and even U.S. citizens with Muslim and Arab backgrounds.
In 2001, my husband was unmarried, Muslim and had residential ties to Kuwait: one of the flagged countries suspected of housing terrorists. As a result of these factors and his electronic expertise, Khalid fit the profile the U.S. government implemented for identifying suspected terrorists.
After 2001, Khalid became immersed in a legal immigration nightmare. The judge presiding over Khalid’s original immigration case determined that he was deportable based on his one conviction of reckless endangerment. If reckless endangerment was considered an aggravated felony than the judge would have been correct. However, reckless endangerment is considered a crime of moral turpitude. In order for a crime of moral turpitude to be considered a deportable crime, the individual in question would have to commit one crime of moral turpitude within five years of arriving in the States or-- failing to qualify in that regards-- would need to commit two crimes of moral turpitude. My husband’s situation did not qualify as deportable based on these criteria.
Consequently, my husband remanded this decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The BIA agreed that the one crime of moral turpitude is not deportable. Additionally, they determined that he was eligible for asylum, a form of relief the immigration judge denied him-- unless his crime was considered a particularly serious crime. Subsequently, the immigration judge proclaimed that Khalid’s crime was a particularly serious crime and therefore, he was denied asylum and considered deportable.
Once again, Khalid appealed the decision to the BIA. They agreed it was a particularly serious crime, which denied him asylum, but did not concur deportability based on the conviction. Despite the BIA’s reluctance in issuing a deportation mandate, my husband was apprehended at his home in 2003 and deposited in a detention facility in Batavia New York. He languished in detention for over eight months, despite having legal papers, a valid passport and repeatedly imploring the detention officers to return him to India. During this unconstitutional imprisonment, Khalid lost his livelihood, his freedom and his house.
To digress to legal explanations, the usage of the term “particularly serious crime” is predominately an ambiguous designation. An unfortunate consequence of the 2nd circuit decision in my husband’s case is the ability of immigration judges to apply this designation to any conviction, even without evidence of violence, criminal intent or premeditation. Although this law could be applied to any immigrant, it was most often utilized against Muslims and Arabs.
Indeed, this tendency to single out this particular ethnic population continued in the passing of other security measures including the absconder apprehension initiative, and the Muslim immigrant registration process. The Migration Policy Institute conducted a survey of Muslims detained after 9/11 entitled: America’s Challenge: Domestic Security, Civil Liberties and National Unity after September 11th. They found the overall deportations of Muslims increased substantially in the years following the tragedy of 9/11.
Fears of deportations and the implementation of ethnic specific laws effectively alienated most Muslims from their communities and severely restricted their lives. The report explains in the following excerpt:
“As a general immigration enforcement measure, the absconder apprehension initiative is legitimate and important. However, after September 11 the government changed the character of the program to make it nationality-specific. This has marginal security benefits, while further equating national origin with dangerousness, although stepped-up absconder apprehension efforts are eventually to encompass all nationalities, this has not happened so far.”
There is no indication that any of the men who were deterred at detention centers were actually a menace to American society. The majority of detainees were non-violent, had family ties in the States and had been residents for a considerable amount of time. They do not fit the established profile of a real terrorist. As the report discusses:
“Most importantly, from our research it appears that the government’s major successes in apprehending terrorists have not come from post-September 11 detentions but from other efforts such as international intelligence initiatives, law enforcement cooperation, and information provided by arrests made abroad. A few noncitizens detained after September 11 have been characterized as terrorists, but the charges brought against them were actually for routine immigration violations or unrelated crimes.”
The actual result of these measures has not resulted in a safer country. Instead, we have created a society that is alienated, fragmented and unnecessarily fearful and distrustful of each other. Rather than safety, these legal statutes have resulted in instability and the eradication of numerous personal liberties. The Migration Policy Institute explains:
“The government’s use of immigration law as a primary means of fighting terrorism has substantially diminished civil liberties and stigmatized Arab- and Muslim-American communities in this country. These measures, which were primarily targeted at Muslims, have diminished the openness of U.S. society and eroded national unity.”
The problem with this stigmatization is that people operate under the illusion that it is easy to identify the enemy. The underlying assumption remains: If Muslims are inherently evil and are easy to identify, with their conspicuous facial hair and strange clothing; it will be easy to banish them from our country. Only then will we be safe. This sounds eerily familiar. In times of crises, many civilizations have implemented similar magical and dangerous thinking.
One does not need to go far back into America’s history to find such an example. Consider, for instance, the practice of sending thousands of Japanese-Americans to internment camps during World War II. Now, after years of reflection, most Americans would agree this was not the right thing to do. In fact, many Japanese interned were later awarded monetary compensation as a symbol of America’s regret.
We’ve deluded ourselves into thinking that evil dons a readily identifiable mask. Evil doers wear peculiar clothing and speak strange languages. We don’t want to admit that evil is elusive. We want comfort in an uncertain world so we concoct a fictional reality where we can identify “the other” as the cause of our suffering and uncertainty. As long as our attention is exclusively occupied by eradicating this evil then we don’t have to look at the reality before us. Evil dons many masks and unlike humans, it does not discriminate.
As a result of the war his father had lost his job and could no longer finance Khalid’s education. Consequently, Khalid was left without a homeland to return to and the grim prospect of dropping out of college to fend for himself as best he could. His father, fearing for his son’s safety, encouraged Khalid to stay in the United States, at least until there was a stable home to return to. That time never came.
In 1991 he moved from Oklahoma to Utica, New York. While in Utica, he obtained employment as a taxi driver. However, Khalid soon realized that working as a taxi driver in Utica in the early 1990’s was a hazardous profession. Many taxi drivers were assaulted and robbed and there was at least one documented fatality.
At 12:30 on a summer night in 1993, while filling out some paperwork in his cab, he was threatened by four individuals: individuals that Khalid felt meant him physical harm.
In order to defend himself he shot a gun into the air. Unfortunately, Khalid was only familiar with Oklahoma’s permissive gun laws and was not aware that New York state required guns to be registered. Regardless, his intention was never to hurt anyone; he merely wanted to scare them away. Indeed, no one was hurt, nor was any property damaged. The police report confirms that he was approached and harassed by a group of people-- two of whom had previous convictions. Ultimately, this information was disregarded but significance was attached to the firing of an unregistered gun.
He fully cooperated with the police but despite this he was arrested and taken into custody. When the District Attorney agreed to lower the charges to 3rd degree reckless endangerment, a minor infraction that did not result in jail time, but the presiding judge refused to take the plea. Thankfully, the gun violation was dropped but my husband was charged with 1st degree reckless endangerment. He served 4 months of his 6 month sentence due to good behavior.
After his release, Khalid was looking forward to putting the conviction behind him. Unfortunately, fate had other plans. After 9/11, fear seeped into the dark crevices in American’s psyches and secured its predatory talons into our quaking flesh. Consequently, many Americans concluded if a few extremists can be callous enough to take innocent lives, than by extension, all Muslims must be dangerous. Unfortunately, this is an assumption based on fear and ignorance and has been exploited by American leaders to expand their own Imperialistic agenda, and is not based on empirical fact.
In retribution, the United States government began a systematic and intense operative in removing Muslim and Arab immigrants from this country. Although many were in the United States illegally, the assault was also felt by legal immigrants and even U.S. citizens with Muslim and Arab backgrounds.
In 2001, my husband was unmarried, Muslim and had residential ties to Kuwait: one of the flagged countries suspected of housing terrorists. As a result of these factors and his electronic expertise, Khalid fit the profile the U.S. government implemented for identifying suspected terrorists.
After 2001, Khalid became immersed in a legal immigration nightmare. The judge presiding over Khalid’s original immigration case determined that he was deportable based on his one conviction of reckless endangerment. If reckless endangerment was considered an aggravated felony than the judge would have been correct. However, reckless endangerment is considered a crime of moral turpitude. In order for a crime of moral turpitude to be considered a deportable crime, the individual in question would have to commit one crime of moral turpitude within five years of arriving in the States or-- failing to qualify in that regards-- would need to commit two crimes of moral turpitude. My husband’s situation did not qualify as deportable based on these criteria.
Consequently, my husband remanded this decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The BIA agreed that the one crime of moral turpitude is not deportable. Additionally, they determined that he was eligible for asylum, a form of relief the immigration judge denied him-- unless his crime was considered a particularly serious crime. Subsequently, the immigration judge proclaimed that Khalid’s crime was a particularly serious crime and therefore, he was denied asylum and considered deportable.
Once again, Khalid appealed the decision to the BIA. They agreed it was a particularly serious crime, which denied him asylum, but did not concur deportability based on the conviction. Despite the BIA’s reluctance in issuing a deportation mandate, my husband was apprehended at his home in 2003 and deposited in a detention facility in Batavia New York. He languished in detention for over eight months, despite having legal papers, a valid passport and repeatedly imploring the detention officers to return him to India. During this unconstitutional imprisonment, Khalid lost his livelihood, his freedom and his house.
To digress to legal explanations, the usage of the term “particularly serious crime” is predominately an ambiguous designation. An unfortunate consequence of the 2nd circuit decision in my husband’s case is the ability of immigration judges to apply this designation to any conviction, even without evidence of violence, criminal intent or premeditation. Although this law could be applied to any immigrant, it was most often utilized against Muslims and Arabs.
Indeed, this tendency to single out this particular ethnic population continued in the passing of other security measures including the absconder apprehension initiative, and the Muslim immigrant registration process. The Migration Policy Institute conducted a survey of Muslims detained after 9/11 entitled: America’s Challenge: Domestic Security, Civil Liberties and National Unity after September 11th. They found the overall deportations of Muslims increased substantially in the years following the tragedy of 9/11.
Fears of deportations and the implementation of ethnic specific laws effectively alienated most Muslims from their communities and severely restricted their lives. The report explains in the following excerpt:
“As a general immigration enforcement measure, the absconder apprehension initiative is legitimate and important. However, after September 11 the government changed the character of the program to make it nationality-specific. This has marginal security benefits, while further equating national origin with dangerousness, although stepped-up absconder apprehension efforts are eventually to encompass all nationalities, this has not happened so far.”
There is no indication that any of the men who were deterred at detention centers were actually a menace to American society. The majority of detainees were non-violent, had family ties in the States and had been residents for a considerable amount of time. They do not fit the established profile of a real terrorist. As the report discusses:
“Most importantly, from our research it appears that the government’s major successes in apprehending terrorists have not come from post-September 11 detentions but from other efforts such as international intelligence initiatives, law enforcement cooperation, and information provided by arrests made abroad. A few noncitizens detained after September 11 have been characterized as terrorists, but the charges brought against them were actually for routine immigration violations or unrelated crimes.”
The actual result of these measures has not resulted in a safer country. Instead, we have created a society that is alienated, fragmented and unnecessarily fearful and distrustful of each other. Rather than safety, these legal statutes have resulted in instability and the eradication of numerous personal liberties. The Migration Policy Institute explains:
“The government’s use of immigration law as a primary means of fighting terrorism has substantially diminished civil liberties and stigmatized Arab- and Muslim-American communities in this country. These measures, which were primarily targeted at Muslims, have diminished the openness of U.S. society and eroded national unity.”
The problem with this stigmatization is that people operate under the illusion that it is easy to identify the enemy. The underlying assumption remains: If Muslims are inherently evil and are easy to identify, with their conspicuous facial hair and strange clothing; it will be easy to banish them from our country. Only then will we be safe. This sounds eerily familiar. In times of crises, many civilizations have implemented similar magical and dangerous thinking.
One does not need to go far back into America’s history to find such an example. Consider, for instance, the practice of sending thousands of Japanese-Americans to internment camps during World War II. Now, after years of reflection, most Americans would agree this was not the right thing to do. In fact, many Japanese interned were later awarded monetary compensation as a symbol of America’s regret.
We’ve deluded ourselves into thinking that evil dons a readily identifiable mask. Evil doers wear peculiar clothing and speak strange languages. We don’t want to admit that evil is elusive. We want comfort in an uncertain world so we concoct a fictional reality where we can identify “the other” as the cause of our suffering and uncertainty. As long as our attention is exclusively occupied by eradicating this evil then we don’t have to look at the reality before us. Evil dons many masks and unlike humans, it does not discriminate.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Khalid's Early Life
My husband does not speak often about his life before arriving in the United States. Although I shouldn't speak for him-- I surmise that life was rough for his family for various reasons. They were Indian immigrants residing in an alien Arabic landscape with different customs, language and religious observations. Even though they were Muslim (except for his mother who was Christian)I'm sure the interpretation of Islam was slightly different in India then in a traditional Arabic nation. Such circumstances can make a person--or family-- feel vulnerable, alone and anxious.
Additionally, Khalid expresses a certain amount of detachment from his Mother and Father--partly as a result of the forced separation and also based on his upbringing. His father was a stern man and believed in bringing his children up with a strict interpretation of Islam. Khalid was forced to don a professional, pious attitude at all times, even wearing a suit to school and attending prayer the required 5 times per day--every day.
His mother was a traditional Indian woman who probably had far too much to do; after taking care of six children and a husband-- then to focus too much attention exclusively on her 2nd oldest child.
Please understand--I am in no way expressing any disdain for Islam as a belief-system. Islam is a peace-loving religion and I have had the privilege of befriending many lovely Muslim people. I have respect for Islam as well as Christianity and Judaism--even though I choose to worship differently.
To get back to the main point...Khalid left India at the age of six and relocated with his family to Kuwait City, Kuwait. His father was a civil engineer who found ample employment in Kuwait as a result of the fledgling oil industry. With his father's new found success the family was able to afford a comfortable home, a large American made car and other small luxuries. Luxuries that would not have been obtainable in India
For an intelligent and academically-minded youngster like Khalid, the household was too chaotic for doing any sustained studying, so he would go next door to one of the empty company sponsored homes, sneak in and complete his homework in refreshing silence.
He showed an early aptitude for electronic tinkering. Khalid often relates the story of one of the first times he showed such an aptitude: an instance that got him into a lot of trouble with his father. Sometime in the early 1980's, when boom boxes were at their peak of popularity, his father proudly purchased an advanced specimen and presented it to his excited family. Khalid was completely mesmerized by the electronic device, so when his father was occupied elsewhere, Khalid took it--and dismantled it in an effort to figure out how it worked. Unfortunately, his electronic expertise was unrefined at this juncture and he was unable to put it back in working order. Obviously, his father was just a tad unhappy when he came home to see his precious music player in disarray.
When Khalid turned 18, he applied to various American universities for electrical engineering. Out of the three that accepted him, his father encouraged him to attend Oklahoma State University because the city had a cohesive and substantial Muslim community. He secured a student VISA and arrived in Oklahoma in 1987. After acclimating to the culture of an American university he obtained good grades and found a supportive community. He was planning on spending four years in the States and then upon securing his degree, return to Kuwait and exercise his new found skills. Unfortunately, due to various circumstances, that were completely out of his control, Khalid's plans went awry. More on this in a subsequent post.
Additionally, Khalid expresses a certain amount of detachment from his Mother and Father--partly as a result of the forced separation and also based on his upbringing. His father was a stern man and believed in bringing his children up with a strict interpretation of Islam. Khalid was forced to don a professional, pious attitude at all times, even wearing a suit to school and attending prayer the required 5 times per day--every day.
His mother was a traditional Indian woman who probably had far too much to do; after taking care of six children and a husband-- then to focus too much attention exclusively on her 2nd oldest child.
Please understand--I am in no way expressing any disdain for Islam as a belief-system. Islam is a peace-loving religion and I have had the privilege of befriending many lovely Muslim people. I have respect for Islam as well as Christianity and Judaism--even though I choose to worship differently.
To get back to the main point...Khalid left India at the age of six and relocated with his family to Kuwait City, Kuwait. His father was a civil engineer who found ample employment in Kuwait as a result of the fledgling oil industry. With his father's new found success the family was able to afford a comfortable home, a large American made car and other small luxuries. Luxuries that would not have been obtainable in India
For an intelligent and academically-minded youngster like Khalid, the household was too chaotic for doing any sustained studying, so he would go next door to one of the empty company sponsored homes, sneak in and complete his homework in refreshing silence.
He showed an early aptitude for electronic tinkering. Khalid often relates the story of one of the first times he showed such an aptitude: an instance that got him into a lot of trouble with his father. Sometime in the early 1980's, when boom boxes were at their peak of popularity, his father proudly purchased an advanced specimen and presented it to his excited family. Khalid was completely mesmerized by the electronic device, so when his father was occupied elsewhere, Khalid took it--and dismantled it in an effort to figure out how it worked. Unfortunately, his electronic expertise was unrefined at this juncture and he was unable to put it back in working order. Obviously, his father was just a tad unhappy when he came home to see his precious music player in disarray.
When Khalid turned 18, he applied to various American universities for electrical engineering. Out of the three that accepted him, his father encouraged him to attend Oklahoma State University because the city had a cohesive and substantial Muslim community. He secured a student VISA and arrived in Oklahoma in 1987. After acclimating to the culture of an American university he obtained good grades and found a supportive community. He was planning on spending four years in the States and then upon securing his degree, return to Kuwait and exercise his new found skills. Unfortunately, due to various circumstances, that were completely out of his control, Khalid's plans went awry. More on this in a subsequent post.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Senseless
The word senseless has flickered through my mind during this whole immigration ordeal. Although it is completely pointless I keep trying to determine why Homeland Security is adamant about deporting my husband. What is the advantage of spending thousands of dollars and countless hours in order to deport him? How exactly is the deportation of my husband going to make America a better and safer place? What possible good can come out of deporting a husband, an employee and a tax payer? My husband is not a terrorist, a drug addict or drug dealer. He has never physically hurt or abused anyone! The man does not possess one mean, callous or disrespectful bone in his body. The deportation of my husband will not result in anything positive or good--it will only result in misery and strife.
And if they were so intent on deporting him, why didn’t they just do so the first time he was in detention in 2003? These are all questions I will never have the answer to—and it is driving me insane. Why in the world did the U.S. government allow him to adjust his status before the 2nd circuit hearing and then rescind it? Unfortunately, I cannot stop myself from pondering the reasons why this senseless situation is unfolding this way.
In addition to all these questions, I can’t help but think about everything Khalid has been through and how this situation has affected him mentally and physically. He has been separated from his family since the late 1980’s. I cannot fathom what that was like and how lonely he must have felt during these years. And now, in addition to everything else he has lost, he is now being separated from his wife here in the States. He has worked hard his whole life, even holding down two jobs while doing countless hours of overtime, training other people and taking any additional challenges his employer has asked of him. None of this has made a bit of difference.
Some people answer this question by saying that life just isn’t fair. No, life isn’t fair. But does that justify the horrible, wretched, inhumane things people do to each other? Life is all about distributing scarce resources and determining who gets a larger chunk of the pie and who is left fighting for the crumbs. The scarcest resource of all is love and the bitterest struggle: its procurement.
And if they were so intent on deporting him, why didn’t they just do so the first time he was in detention in 2003? These are all questions I will never have the answer to—and it is driving me insane. Why in the world did the U.S. government allow him to adjust his status before the 2nd circuit hearing and then rescind it? Unfortunately, I cannot stop myself from pondering the reasons why this senseless situation is unfolding this way.
In addition to all these questions, I can’t help but think about everything Khalid has been through and how this situation has affected him mentally and physically. He has been separated from his family since the late 1980’s. I cannot fathom what that was like and how lonely he must have felt during these years. And now, in addition to everything else he has lost, he is now being separated from his wife here in the States. He has worked hard his whole life, even holding down two jobs while doing countless hours of overtime, training other people and taking any additional challenges his employer has asked of him. None of this has made a bit of difference.
Some people answer this question by saying that life just isn’t fair. No, life isn’t fair. But does that justify the horrible, wretched, inhumane things people do to each other? Life is all about distributing scarce resources and determining who gets a larger chunk of the pie and who is left fighting for the crumbs. The scarcest resource of all is love and the bitterest struggle: its procurement.
I am reminded of a wonderful Indian author named Arundhati Roy and her book The God of Small Things. If you haven't read it I recommend it highly. In this book she explores the nature of love and how it is artificially distributed in society based upon arbitrary designations of rank, wealth and power. More specifically the story centers around the tragic love story between an upper class Indian woman and a poor Untouchable laborer. A particular quote from the book comes to mind and I will share it with you now:
"They all broke the rules. They all crossed into forbidden territory. They all tampered with the laws that lay down who should be loved and how. And how much."
This quote has become quite poignant to me now. I realize that the problems our country is currently facing: including the debate about gay marriage, the excesses of greed, racism, sexism and the discriminatory immigration judicial system; can all be linked by this distribution of love-- and who deserves it and who doesn't.
So, here I am, sitting in my living room-- ironically watching a special on Michael Jackson and fearing that this will be the last day I will spend with my husband and wondering where our share of the love is.....
Monday, June 29, 2009
Recent developments
After a period of relative calm, and just when we were feeling somewhat secure; a new development has occurred in my husband's case...and its not a positive one. The rug has been pulled out from underneath us...for the 10th time. There is no way to accurately describe the feeling that washes over you when you are faced with the imminent separation of you and the most important person in your life. The closest association I can come up with is a long, languishing death of a loved one--but even that isn't a close approximation. Both of us are very much alive and it is not death that is separating us, but the imperfect, arbitrary laws of man.
To imagine that both of us will be living, breathing and sleeping under the same stars and yet we will not be able to hold each other, comfort each other or share a joke together is excruciating. Every time I think about it it feels as if my breath is being sucked from my body leaving only a black hole and the insatiable abyss.
We have been told by a reliable source that the Indian government is trying to verify Khalid's identity by tracking down any of his relatives in India. The reason this is necessary is because when Khalid was imprisoned in a detention center in Batavia New York for 8 months in 2003-- the person handling his case sent all three of his passports to the Indian consulate in order to procur travelling papers. Based on protocol he was only supposed to send one and keep any additional ones as backup.
Fast forward to last July, when Homeland Security was trying to obtain his travelling papers to deport him, India refused to issue any because they require a passport for processing. This left Khalid in a state of immigration limbo which he has been in for almost a year. He was unable to adjust his status but also unable to go to India.
If India is able to verify that Khalid is an Indian citizen, however that process unfolds, that will allow the U.S. government to deport him. Apparently, they have contacted an aunt in India that Khalid did not know was still there. If the worst happens, I will have no say and will not be able to say good-bye to him. They will shackle him in handcuffs and chains like a criminal and imprison him once again before they place him on a plane to India. It is possible I may never see him again for various reasons. He is Muslim and is going into a country where violence against Muslims is common. In addition, with his absence, I will not be able to afford the medicine and co-pays needed to manage my medical conditions. I will likely lose my apartment, my education and even my sight.
I fear that if the worst happens, and Khalid is deported, I will not be strong enough to handle it. Financially, mentally and spiritually I will fall apart. We have to report to the Homeland Security office in Albany New York this Wednesday, and with these new developments I fear the worst.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)