Flinging dirt

Tragedy can either bring out the best of people or the worst. When all the dirt shakes loose it naturally distributes a bit of both. I’ve seen a lot of  dirt in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing. Years from now, when looking back at the tragedy I’m not sure whether the dirt left behind will nourish hope and understanding or whether it sullies the  nation’s  collective heart with fear, divisiveness and retributive zeal.

Some of the “dirt” I’m referring to is the intensity of the Islamophobia fervor I’ve witnessed recently. Reports of Muslims being singled out for angry rants and even physical violence have become commonplace. Apparently some citizens invoke the “guilty by association” paradigm, particularly when it applies to members of the “other” group(s) of people. The “other” referring to anyone who does not fall within the individual’s self identified group. In this particular case I am referring to the dominant group in America: White male Christians.

In  all fairness, any marginalized group in America can readily invoke the spirit of Islamophobia. All it takes is the willingness to participate in reductionism: : “a procedure or theory that reduces complex data and phenomena to simple terms.”(from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reductionism)

An illustration of reductionism can be found in the words of Fox News guest commentator Erik Rush; who-- before any official reports came out stating the bombers were Muslim, made the following rant  on Twitter ““Yes, they’re evil. (Muslims)  Let’s kill them all.”

According to Rush, and many individuals like him, all Muslims are evil because a small minority have done terrible things. This is the antithesis of rational thought because it discounts the majority of the world’s Muslim population that live peacefully. It also denies the reality that people of other religions; including Christianity, have committed violence. I trust that I don’t have to provide a  list of  historical atrocities perpetrated by Christians around the world to drive that point home.

What is significant here is not the particular words used. One can find similar words on the lips of various  people who  fear Muslims and blame them collectively for the Marathon bombings and other acts of terrorism. What I am addressing here is the fact that Rush mouthed the sentiments and is—himself--, an African American and member of a population that has historically been subjugated, stereotyped and scapegoated  in America.

Let’s not just spotlight African Americans because similar views prosper in many minority groups across the nation. I have heard disparaging comments about Muslims in various immigration reform groups on the internet. I can’t count how many times I’ve heard words such as “Why do immigrants get punished due to the actions of Muslims” or “Why can’t the government deport all the Muslims and leave the rest of the immigrant community alone. After all, we didn’t bomb anybody.” 

This divisiveness punishes us all who fight for immigration reform. If one individual from an “other” group does something bad then it taints us all because White Male America makes no distinctions. White Male America loves it when one minority group points the finger and blames the “other” because this divisiveness ensures that they remain in control.

If those of us who support immigration reform want to make any significant improvements in the lives of immigrants and their families we need to stop pointing the finger at each other. Collectively we are in the majority and White Male America knows this. They love the finger pointing. They even encourage it.

We are all interconnected. No amount of “dirt” flung at us will change that. We can choose to pick up the dirt flung at us and throw it at someone else or we can take that dirt and use it to nourish something beautiful. Let us choose wisely.

Disguising malignancy: positive psychology and the art of self-deception

I came across an article about the U.S. military implementing a new program that trains recruits in the subtle art of positive psychology. The link for the article is :

http://www.alternet.org/world/147637

According to the author of the article, positive psychology is implemented in order to develop and improve “communication skills, cognitive reforming skills and help soldiers not to catastrophize -- don’t think of the worse case scenario about every potential problem.” The program also teaches soldiers to focus on “expressing appreciation” and “correcting negative views of ambiguous events.”

Now, I don't know about you, but I'm not comfortable with the idea of our military becoming a comedic, perpetual perky version of a modern day "Hogan's Heroes". If you are too young to remember the 1960's tv show, all I can suggest is look it up on Hulu or Youtube.

I'm not saying that optimism isn't a good trait to have, but when you are working in a volatile environment and when one false move can result in your death or someone next to you, I'm not sure if "putting on a happy face" and thinking positive thoughts is the prudent approach. When confronted by dangerous situations, it is wise to consider all negative consequences and worst case scenarios. This is nearly impossible when all you are trained to do is think happy thoughts.

Additionally, I can't fathom how it is possible to express appreciation when you are being attacked by guerrilla soldiers.

Interestingly enough, just before I came across this article, I read a book entitled: Empire of Illusion: the End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle by Chris Hedges. He writes about the infiltration of illusions in American culture, and one of these illusions he tackles is the merits of positive psychology.

Chris Hedges argues that positive psychology is inherently destructive to individuals and society. He explains in the following paragraph:


"Philosopher David Jopling calls positive illusions 'life-lies'. He argues that so-called positive illusions may work for awhile but collapse when reality becomes too harsh and intrudes on the dream world. 'The deeper and more pervasive an individual's positive illusions,' writes Jopling, 'the greater their effect of diminishing his range of awareness of himself, other people, and the situation confronting him.' Jopling argues that self-deception strategies are reality filters that organize what people understand into self-relevant and self-serving packages. 'With the diminishing of the range of responsiveness and openness' to what is real. Ones' ability to interact intelligently with all of the world's real consequences diminishes. Jopling warns of the grave moral consequences for a delusional society. 'This means that the range of social, emotional, and personal relations that connect us to others, to the social world, and to our own humanity, are progressively weakened as self-deceptive strategies become progressively entrenched in behavior and thought.'" p. 123-124 Hedges

Corporations have been promoting positive psychology for decades, argues Chris Hedges. The results have been catastrophic and have facilitated the rise of consumerism, along with the emergence of an apathetic citizenry and the entrenchment of conformity and allegiance to authority: even in the midst of immorality. Hedges elaborates:

"Corporatism, aided by positive psychology, relies on several effective coercive persuasion techniques, similar to those often employed by cults, to meld workers into a "happy" collective. It sanctions interpersonal and psychological attacks and lavish praise to destabilize an individual's sense of self and promotes compliance. It uses the coercive pressure of organized peer groups. It applies interpersonal pressure, including attacks on individuality and criticism as a form of negativity, to ensure conformity. It manipulates and controls the totality of the person's social environment to stabilize modified behavior." p. 135 Hedges

Personally, I believe positive psychology is dangerous. It gives the illusion that all anyone has to do to change their circumstances is think positive thoughts and, poof..everything is rosy. It encourages reliance on magical thinking and denies the realities of social inequity and social responsibility. Most disturbing of all is it coerces conformity and an unhealthy allegiance to authority figures by stifling independent and critical thought.

As Albert Einstein said: “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”




Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle

The Crisis of Western Civilization

Thom Hartmann is a genius! I don't say that lightly because geniuses seem to be in short supply these days. According to Hartman, all of Western society's; and by extension through globalization, the world's problems-- can be attributed to faulty and irrational thinking.

Since researching immigration, sexism, racism, homophobia, neo-liberal policies, environmental degradation and the prison industrial complex I have come to the conclusion that most--if not all--of these issues stem from the same fundamental problem. Hartmann eloquently gives a name to this root cause: "cultural dysfunction" and names the basis for this dysfunction as being the unbridled and illusory notion that economies should exponentially grow without barriers, restrictions or limitations. Hartman explains this notion is illusory and dangerous because there are not enough natural resources to sustain this type of growth.

Rather than looking at all things natural as being sacred and inherently valuable in its own right, Western civilization strives, through its fervent worship of growth economics, to turn everything into commodities. Utilizing patriarchy-- and what Hartmann terms; unnatural tools of hierarchies, Western civilization attempts to divvy out material goods to the most deserving populace.

I highly recommend watching the entire interview. It is a half an hour long but well worth the time invested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poMPeSx_WnY&feature=PlayList&p=40421D748A1E3E02&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=12

"Other people's baggage"

The title of this post was borrowed from a phrase written on a blog maintained by a good friend of mine. Her name is Giselle Stern Hernandez and her husband was deported to Mexico back in 2000. A few months later she left her homeland in the United States to join him.

Giselle is a multi-talented artist who travels across the States and Mexico to perform a monologue piece she created about her exiled experience and the consequences of her husband's deportation. I highly recommend her blog and will include a link.

After reading a particular post on Giselle's blog: The Deportees Wife entitled "When Dialogue is Pointless." I was particularly struck by a specific phrase that Giselle wrote. The phrase was "other people's baggage" It was written in response to how some people miscontrue the fundamental message of her monologue, or make uneducated judgments about Giselle, her personality and lifestyle--in addition to forming opinions about her husband. This oftentimes happens even before they attend her show and is based upon sound bites and posters.

I am often confronted by "other people's baggage" when I engage in dialogue with individuals about my husband's immigration problems. I never know exactly how people think about our story, unless they are completely forthright --and that seldom happens. I often get exclamations of empathy and "I can't believe this is happening in America." Oftentimes I feel people within my inner circle are sympathetic to a point--but only because Khalid is someone they know or have heard about--and because he is my husband. Otherwise, this sympathy does not extend to other immigrants with similar circumstances.

People come with "baggage". I come with "baggage." This is a fundamental truth about human behavior. Many things can contribute to the accumulation of baggage including history, media and personal experiences. We, as educators and activists, can never know what kind of baggage the people with whom we engage in dialogue are carrying. Some people are so burdened by their own baggage that they will never make the effort to understand our stories. Luckily, some will. These are the people who put down their baggage long enough to pick up somebody else's.

And there will be others who may not "get it now" but through maturity and additional knowledge may "get it later." Unfortunately, some people will "get it" only when they or a loved one experience the deportation of someone close to them. This is the time when people like Giselle and I need to put down our baggage; and pick up somebody else's.

http://thedeporteeswife.wordpress.com/

An American oubliette

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/

Voraciousness and Farmville

Voracious. I’ve been thinking about that word lately. It’s a good word—-has more than two syllables, starts with a “v” so it’s a rare word. It rolls off the tongue smoothly but it has an angry sound to it. Have you ever noticed that there’s something surprisingly angry about the word voracious?

I am a voracious person. I can admit that. I’m angry and voracious at the same time. This is not a good combination. I think most Americans are voracious. It is hotwired into us by a fast-paced, consumerist culture that rewards impulsivity, competition and callousness. We want everything. In reality, we can’t have everything and that makes us angry. Some of us-- based on sexuality, class and race-- can get more “stuff” than others. This is how the American system works—-indeed, how the capitalistic system works in general. Power structures serve as gatekeepers in order to ensure that consumer goods are distributed to those who supposedly “deserve” them and deny them to those who don’t.

As Americans, we are expected to want everything. In fact, our American society is so vehement about the virtue of consumerism that we are able; via cultural conditioning, into thinking that our wants are actually needs. We need that new car, the fancy washing machine the seventh pair of red shoes. This mindset is dangerous and has caused untold suffering to ourselves and the rest of the world.

Ironically, I’ve been reminded of my own voraciousness in an unexpected way. You see, I’ve become addicted to the Facebook application “Farmville”. No, I’m not kidding. Although one would think that playing a game about farming would be benign—I assure you it is one of the most dangerous games out there. Sad, but true.

Why? Well, the whole purpose of Farmville is to grow and harvest crops and then sell them for “Farmcash” so you can go to market and buy “stuff.” There are no limits to the animals, trees, buildings, decorations and even natural formations you can buy. Recently, I purchased an Old Faithful geyser in the Farmville shop and it’s been one of my favorite items. It erupts anytime I double click it. I am: at any time, only one mouse-click away from simultaneously satisfying my consumerist and power weilding God-like cravings. Nothing is better than that. While you can buy some items with “Farmcash”, other more coveted items can only be bought with real cash. In line with capitalism’s tendency towards novelty, new items are added regularly; based on various holiday’s , sports events, and regional themes. For instance, farmers have been able to buy torches, award stands and a ski jump throughout the duration of the Olympics and during Mardi Gras we could buy French Quarter buildings, masquerade masks and a carnival tree.

You’ve got to hand it to the enterprising spirit in this country; selling virtual items to gullible people. Who woulda thunk it?

Mind you, this is Farmville; a farm village—what possible purpose would a farmer need for an Olympic torch, a ski jump or a panda? It’s quite ridiculous. But, it mirrors the decadence and excessiveness of our current age.

This has given me pause and the motivation to take stock of my own consumerist tendencies. Realistically speaking, I don’t have a lot of disposable income; however, I do not manage what I have in a moderate manner. I spend countless dollars on crafts, clothes, DVD’s, books and music that I do not need nor will I ever utilize in a lifetime.

So, I have decided that I need to curtail my consumerist excesses and in addition I want to involve myself in the slow food movement. Certainly, industrial farming is harmful to the environment, people’s health and contributes to the degradation inherent in rampant consumerism. It will be an ongoing process but one necessary if I want to have a positive effect on my inner peace and my community at large.

However, I can’t give up Farmville—at least not yet: I haven’t yet acquired the million dollar villa!

As smart as a monkey

Occasionally, particularly in the beginning of a relationship, your partner will do or say something that goes against convention. It happens in every relationship, but I surmise it happens most often in relationships that comprise one person from a different culture. When one keeps an open mind it is amazing what can be learned within these intersections of diverging perspectives.

I was reminded of one of these enlightening moments this morning when I was eating breakfast. Normally, I have breakfast with Khalid on Sunday's. Quite often he makes a delicious pancake and turkey bacon breakfast. But on this particular Sunday he had arisen early to indulge in a favorite pastime; fishing.

So, here I was, alone, blithely eating my Cheerios and sipping coffee when I reached out to pick up a banana. Without thinking I turned the banana upside down and began peeling it from the bottom.


I never used to peel a banana that way. Like most cultured Americans I had always peeled it from the stem--struggling and cursing the entire time. This is how I was taught as a youngster, this is how everyone I knew had done it. As far as I knew...this was how our ancestors had done it throughout the centuries. Who was I to question it? Never mind that it's extremely difficult to do, or that I usually mash up a sizable portion of the banana. Indeed, I never questioned it until I met Khalid.

One of the first days we had been living together I witnessed Khalid effortlessly peeling a banana from the bottom. I was intrigued...because quite frankly, I had never seen it done that way. I asked him where he learned to peel a banana that way. He looked at me with a quizzical expression on his face. He looked to my serious face and back to the banana. "What??" I believe his reply was.

After some comical deliberation he answered the question by stating simply; that's how everyone does it in Kuwait.

Coincidentally, not long ago I saw a posting about this same topic on the Internet. Interestingly, our distant ancestors--and in this case I am referring to monkeys--peel their bananas from the bottom. Some researchers had apparently gone to some remote location to study the habits of monkeys and had notated this curious fact. One of the points made was the fact that monkeys are considered less intelligent than humans yet a sizable portion of humans, particularly from Western cultures, continue to peel banana's from the stem. So...who is really more intelligent?

It makes me wonder how many things we as Americans do, out of habit and conditioning, that could be implemented in a more efficient or rational way.

This morning, when I noticed I was peeling my banana from the bottom--I smiled to myself and thought: at least I am as smart as a monkey!

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!

Memorial #1: Ansar Mahmood

Ansar Mahmood in the Batavia Detention Facility

The Miriam-Webster online dictionary defines memorial as:

1 : serving to preserve remembrance : commemorative 2 : of or relating to memory

With this particular definition in mind I will periodically present the “memorials” of various people who have been deported by the U.S. government. Too often, the voices of these immigrants are quelled by the din of politics, concealment and flawed legalities. The only ones left to remember them are the family members and friends these immigrants have been forced to leave behind.

Memorials usually take place only when a death occurs. But in instances of deportation, holding a commemoration for these brave immigrants is appropriate—and even necessary. When a deportation takes place, the immigrant is ruthlessly ripped from the fabric of the American landscape—in silence and secrecy.

Such cruelty leaves a throbbing hole within the hearts of everyone involved. It is essential that these immigrants are not forgotten, because it is through the contemplation of memory and the awakening of regret that reclamation is facilitated.

The subject of my first memorial is an immigrant by the name of Ansar Mahmood. His story was well known in the Batavia detention facility when my husband was detained in 2004 and it was one of the first instances, other than my husband’s situation, in which I became aware of America’s war on immigrants.

Ansar was a young Pakistani who came to America as a result of winning a green card through an immigration “lottery”. The purpose of lotteries is to allow people from countries with low rates of immigration to come to the United States. The program randomly selects a few lucky winners from thousands of screened applicants who qualify for a green card.

Ansar worked hard as a pizza delivery man while he was in America and sent money regularly to his family back in Pakistan. Despite working many long hours and having little disposable income he was happy in his new homeland. He found the New York countryside to be beautiful and often took short trips to nearby picturesque destinations. Oftentimes, he took a camera along to take pictures of particularly beautiful scenes and send them back to his family in Pakistan.

It was on the recommendation of a customer that Ansar travelled to a reservoir and water treatment plant in the Hudson Valley. It was here that Ansar’s troubles began. On that day, the view was especially lovely as the sun shone brightly on the Catskill Mountains. He asked one of the guards if they could take a picture of him with the reservoir and the mountains behind him. The guard, taking note of Ansar’s accent, surmised that he was Muslim and labeled him as a possible terrorist. The guard notified the police who in turn notified immigration authorities.

He was interrogated by Federal officials who attempted to tie him to terrorist activities and accused him of plotting to poison public water supplies. After a lengthy interrogation, Federal officials had no evidence to back up their hasty allegations. However, in the aftermath of 9/11 and the resulting moral panic directed against Muslims, evidence was not necessary. They were determined to find something in Ansar’s background that warranted the deportation of a green card holder.

Officials found out that Ansar had helped a Pakistani couple find housing and obtain a car. Unbeknownst to Ansar, the couple had overstayed their VISA and was residing in the States illegally. Ansar was charged with harboring illegal aliens, which is a felony and a deportable offense.

I have no idea how they could assume that Ansar knew the couple was illegal. I know from experience that legal status is not something most immigrants are apt to disclose because they can result in stigmatization, shame and sometimes physical danger. But common sense was ignored in favor of only one goal: deporting Ansar by any means necessary.

Ansar tried to fight the deportation through the courts. He had many supporters and even a New York senator who supported him.

“It’s a disgrace,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, who lobbied on behalf of Mr. Mahmood. “Mahood wanted to be an ideal citizen, and he’s the kind of person America should embrace. There is no reason he should be deported.”(New York Times, August 14, 2004)

None of this made any difference. He was placed on a commercial plane with two INS officials and deported to Pakistan. None of Ansar’s friends or supporters were allowed to say good-bye.

In memory of Ansar Mahmood who was deported on August 12, 2004. May he find peace and understanding wherever he may find himself—because he did not find it in The United States of America.

Sources:

http://www.chathampeace.org/old%20index%20the%20first%20web%20page%20use%20as%20back%20up.htm

http://www.redorbit.com/news/general/41654/pizza_deliveryman_hopes_to_stay_in_us/

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/14/nyregion/man-arrested-over-photos-after-9-11-is-deported.html

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

A True-Blue American

Khalid and I spent a wonderful Fourth of July at Pierre and Donna's house, eating hot dogs and hamburgers, sipping homemade concord grape wine, socializing with great people and simply relaxing after a stressful week. We met a lovely couple, Lorraine and Lee, and Lorraine gave me advice on how to get my art shown in a gallery. She is a successful local artist and her work is shown in art venues across the state. Her genre is fabric art, and is comprised of a painted canvas background and intricate dimensional embroidery of various flowers. She gave me her business card and on the back of it was a copy of one of her pieces: a beautiful rose-colored hollyhock.

Later on, we drove to the Syracuse Fairgrounds to watch the fireworks. They were supposed to start at dusk but for some unfathomable reason did not commence until 9:50. It was unusually cold for a July evening in Central New York, 40 degrees to be exact-- and while I was sitting in a new-- not particularly comfortable transportable chair I berated myself for failing to grab a sweater or blanket on the way out this morning.

Shivering and rocking back and forth to keep myself warm I had ample time to chide myself for my stupidity. While I was watching the hoards of people barbecuing hot dogs, eating ice cream, waving magical sparklers in the air-- and listening to a mother scolding her child for wandering away,-- and doing all those things that are traditional for a July 4th celebration, I wondered what it takes in contemporary society to be considered a true blue, patriotic American and whether I could fit into that narrow definition.

It's easy to know how to be a true-blue American on the 4th of July. It's all spelled out for us. We BBQ, picnic, eat hot dogs and hamburgers, sip lemonade and basically gorge ourselves until the buttons on our shirts pop off. Then we gather our family and friends together and pile in trucks and drive to the best fireworks display in the area.

But when the smoke has dissipated from the ink hued sky, and the last blaze of fiery, reflected color has faded from the iris of a sleeping child; what does a true-blue American do?

Television does a good job of illustrating what is expected of us as it broadcasts American culture and the iconic American dream 24 hours a day; seven days a week. Commercials and the pandering of politicians tell us our most sacred duty as an American is to shop and keep quiet. Put everything on credit and bolster the sagging economy. Shop until you drop-- but don't ask too many questions and, most definitely, don't be critical of the government. We distract ourselves by buying new cars built with cheap parts, large elaborate homes constructed on sink holes--and buy the latest technological gadget at exorbitant prices. Do all this and more--put yourself into piles of critical debt-- but don't draw attention to corporate corruption and the political system that supports it.

And when everything inevitably goes down in flames and the economy is in shambles-- make sure that blame falls on the victims: the Americans who bought into the American dream that has turned into the American nightmare. Blame the poor people who wanted to provide a safe roof for their children, or the young man who borrowed money to keep his fragile business afloat as larger corporations invaded his territory and lured his customers away with promises of the good life for a cheap price. Blame the old people who have to choose between buying food, heat or costly medicine. By no means should you hold the greedy politicians or corporation's accountable. And even if you do, for Heaven's sake, be polite and obedient and don't talk about it.

Maybe I am a relic of the rebellion and social consciousness of the 1960's--after all--I was born in the late sixties and some of the "hippie" essence must have rubbed off on me. But I can't help but feel there is more to being a patriotic American than ascribing to consumerism, passivity or fervent individualism. Somehow, I feel less patriotic--less true-blue-- by admitting that.

When did greed become a trait to aspire to and how exactly did it become good for our economy? America is still predominately a Christian nation therefore I assume that greed is still considered one of the seven deadly sins. I ask this because I read a comment in a discussion group glorifying the virtue of greed and how it single handedly pushed this nation into greatness. Without greed, the argument went, this nation would never had become the superpower it is today. I disagree, I believe that it was ambition that forged this nation. But ambition, without foresight and restraint, becomes destructive and turns to greed.

Am I true-blue American? If I compare myself to some people's notion of what a true-blue American is, probably not. I have a strong tendency towards social and political criticism and don't mind letting my revolutionary thoughts known when the appropriate occasion arises. However, I also believe in community building, helping your neighbor, working for social justice and treating everyone, regardless of rank, color, or culture with dignity and respect. In my heart--that is being a true-blue, patriotic American.