Stomach aches and DHS anxiety

Sometimes I don't catch on to things too quickly. Although I love to read books, explore new ideas and am normally astute in analyzing human behavior, sometimes when it comes to the mundane practical situations of my own life I don't notice things as quickly as I should. In fact, I can be terminally dense.

My husband has been acting oddly for the last week. He's been quieter than usual, sullen and complaining of stomach and back problems. In fact, the last five days he has been getting up in the middle of the night and going over to the spare bedroom to sleep. I don't mind saying that I was feeling a bit rejected. Was I farting in bed? Bad breath? Do I exhibit Terets Syndrome when I sleep? What the heck was going on?? For some reason I just didn't catch on...until this morning...

Khalid rolled on his side in bed and groaned.

I asked: "What's the matter?"

"My stomach hurts."

"Again?" I asked incredulously (he's been complaining of a sour stomach for a few days now)

"Yeah."

Over the next few hours I was contemplating a whole host of scenarios that could explain Khalid's strange behavior over the last week. Was he sick? I asked myself. Was he having a hard time at work? Was he depressed? Sick of me????? (After almost five years of marriage it can happen to even the most loving of couples!) I had no idea what was wrong...

Now, Khalid is usually an early riser. He always gets up before me, but a curious thing happened today. He slept until 9:30 AM!!! He never sleeps that long.

Finally, it hit me! He's acting this way because we have to appear at the DHS office in Albany today and he's worried that something bad is going to happen. BINGO!

I knew that he usually gets nervous when we travel to Albany, but since we learned that India was not recognizing him as a citizen I thought the anxiety had abated a bit. At least he wasn't showing any major anxiety or concern. Usually he was very upbeat about the trip saying "I'm sure everything is status quo and there's nothing to worry about." while turning and smiling at me in a comforting manner."

I now recognize this as an effort to make me feel better. I was still vocal about my trepidation involving going to the DHS office for months after they proclaimed they were not going to deport Khalid. I was so afraid that the government would change their minds and detain and then deport Khalid to god-knows-where.

Apparently, I disregarded the other signs that indicated-- despite Khalid's stoicism--that he was still terrified of going to the DHS office. I ignored the back problems, the getting up in the middle of the night, the stomach ailments; not realizing that they all occurred in tandem a week before we had to visit the DHS office.

How could I be so blind??

And the worst thing about this whole mess is: I can't do anything about it other than holding his hand every time we walk into that damned DHS office in Albany.

An antidote to hate

Being an American citizen married to a “documented alien in removal” has its challenges, for sure. Between reporting to Homeland Security offices in Albany twice a year, constantly worrying about how the next batch of anti-immigration laws will affect your life, and dealing with the inevitable trolls who stalk the posts of pro-immigration bloggers and insinuate that only low class, stupid and desperate women/men would marry an “illegal” alien, can turn a person’s hair silver overnight.

Now, I’ve written about the error in using the term “illegal” in referring to immigrants in the past, but it bears repeating again. Most immigrants have not done anything illegal (i.e. crossing the border without inspection nor have most of them ever committed a crime.) In fact, a substantial number of immigrants have only committed a civil violation by overstaying-- not a criminal one; based on U.S. immigration law. To elaborate: overstay is a civil violation constituting an immigrant who has remained in the U.S. after a VISA has expired. Even the term “undocumented” does not accurately describe all immigrants. For instance, my husband has all his documents (i.e. worker’s permit, passport and a social security number) so he cannot be referred to as “undocumented”. Therefore, the characterization of all immigrants without a green card as “illegal” is inaccurate.

None of my friends who blog about deportation could be characterized as low class, desperate, and especially-- not stupid. The women (and men) I have known who are dealing with separation or deportations of a spouse are the smartest, bravest, strongest and most socially aware people I know. I am proud to call them friends and am thankful that they are a part of my life…even though many miles separate us all.

The wonderful connections I’ve made to people who are going through a similar experience are one of the bright spots in the everyday struggle of dealing with deportation. A fellow blogger remarked: “the whole process of dealing with the immigration system in the U.S. is so dehumanizing that the personal connections we foster online with people going through similar situations is mentally and spiritually healing.”

It can be easy to be consumed by anger and fear when you are dealing with the possible separation of you from your spouse. I remember when Khalid and I were going through the most precarious time in our marriage; just after the denial of his second circuit court case and the deportation mandate was issued. Whenever Khalid was late getting home from work, those minutes before he walked through the door were fraught with fear, anxiety and hopelessness. I was so afraid that ICE had apprehended him at work and sent him to detention. If this had happened I would not have been notified. I would not even know where they had taken him. Perhaps I would be one of the lucky spouses that would get a call from my husband or a lawyer days later telling me where he was being held. Otherwise, it is likely that I would not know any specifics until after the deportation process was completed and he arrived in the country of his birth.

Despite all of this turmoil there are positive aspects to this situation: besides making wonderful friendships. The whole immigration system is designed to tear the American citizen and deportee apart. However, a curious thing happens. Amidst all the negativity, barricades, hateful rhetoric and discriminatory policies the bonds between the couple entwine, grow thicker and become stronger. Love stubbornly grows where hate has wrought devastation. This seems to be a universal truth.

I am aware that since my husband and I have gone through this painful process that we do not easily take each other for granted. Many of the petty annoyances that plague my friends’ relationships do not affect us. When threatened with separation you treasure every moment you spend with the other person. Precious time cannot be wasted on insignificant disagreements you will likely forget a week later. You learn to love deeply, completely and forgive easily. Indeed, this seemingly fragile love becomes the strongest antidote to hate.

An alien with no name

Khalid is an immigrant who has no name. Seems strange to write that. All of you are probably thinking: "Well, of course he has a name. You just wrote it in the first sentence: K H A L I D.

Perhaps the semantics I used is confusing. What I meant to say that he has no label. You know, those humiliating, derogatory, inaccurate labels that get placed on immigrants in this country. Words such as "illegal", "border jumper", "undocumented", "unauthorized worker", etc.

I got to thinking about this curious fact when I was being interviewed for the radio program PRI's: The World. The interviewer referred to him as an "undocumented" immigrant--but that isn't a true characterization either. Of course--I was relieved that she didn't use the term "illegal". Luckily she understood that it was a derogatory term and did not apply to a substantial number of immigrants residing in this country.

However, despite recognizing the word "undocumented" as inaccurate, I didn't correct her because I had no idea what term would be appropriate in describing Khalid's immigration situation.

The term "undocumented" refers to a specific type of immigrant who does not have legal documentation in order to work in the United States. Khalid is "documented"; meaning that he has all his papers--a worker's permit, social security number and passports (well--until the DHS confiscated them and subsequently lost them.) and came here under a student VISA.

I suppose the most accurate designation that could be applied to Khalid is "alien" but even that doesn't quite fit. He has been in the United States so long now that he has lost all trace of a foreign accent and has completely acclimated to American culture: so much so that he loves American football,unhealthy native cuisine; high in fats, carbohydrates and sugar, and Hollywood movies filled with dizzying spectacle but low on content-- and like all American men who fear being emasculated, he hates the color pink. You can't get more American then that.(Surely I jest!)

However, this curious fact that I had no label to attach to my husband's situation bothered me. So, one night, while we were sitting in the living room watching "America's Got Talent" (a guilty pleasure!) I turned to him and asked "What are you called?"

He turned to look at me with a quizzical expression on his face and replied "what?" (This is not an unusual trajectory for our conversations.)

I re-framed the question..."you don't fall under the designation of illegal; and undocumented doesn't fit either-- so what term is officially used to describe your situation?

He thought for a moment and said "technically I am called "a documented alien under removal.'"

Wow, that doesn't exactly roll off the tongue! No wonder news people and pundits choose to use the words "illegal" and "undocumented". At least they are simple!

My point here is not to disparage those immigrants who fall under the term "undocumented". My point is to illustrate the myriad complexities inherent in being an immigrant in contemporary America and how they are simplified by misleading and oftentimes inaccurate labels that are woefully inaccurate in describing an immigrant's status.

There is a scientific principle called "Occam's Razor" which loosely has been summarized as "all things being equal the simplest explanation tends to be the right one." (My apologies to any scientists reading this post who are actually versed in this principle and recognize this is a simplified understanding.)

People who are caught up in this diabolic immigration system and the complex situations it engenders will never adhere to this notion of "Occam's Razor". There is never anything simple about the process of being an immigrant in this country. Nor should there be any simplifications in the language used to describe them. Terms such as "illegal", "undocumented", "alien" are ( as I stated earlier) "woefully inaccurate."

In this current era of compounded complexities perhaps the whole idea of "Occam's Razor" is misleading. There doesn't seem to be much simplicity--at least not in our little corner of the world.

For a change: good news coming from Arizona

Good news! Believe me, for pro-immigrant activists and people who support human rights, this is the kind of news we want and need to hear.

Federal Judge Sue Bolton of Phoenix Arizona has blocked key controversial items from going forward on July 29th: the date the controversial SB 1070 was to go into effect!

I won't go into all the details. You can read it in the link I will supply at the end of this post from the New York Times. I just want to say I am very proud to be an American today. I had a hard time believing that the judge would block SB 1070 because of all anti-immigrant hoopla being promoted in the media . Common sense and an allegiance to the principles in the Constitution apparently trumped hatred and fear.

For that I am grateful. Let's hope these principles stand firm in the midst of probable appeals.

Immigrant rights activism

As a result of connecting with other U.S. citizens whose significant other has been deported or detained, I have decided that I need to do something productive. There are far too many of us going through this tragedy. This needless suffering must come to an end! There are various ideas floating in my head, and I’m sure you have ideas too. We need to communicate with each other and brainstorm like crazy—and come up with ways to educate the public.

One idea I’ve been pondering involves borrowing an idea from our AIDS activist friends and creating a quilt that depicts the names of loved ones who have been deported or under deportation proceedings. This idea involves getting together a significant number of interested individuals willing to help create the quilt. Ideally, each person would agree to create a square of their loved one—or someone they know. Individuals who do not personally know anyone deported will still be welcome to participate. We can assign them a name. There is certainly not a shortage of people being deported and families being separated-- and the numbers increase every year.

Preferably, each quilt square would be created with materials that are durable. We want this quilt to be a testament to our determination to end these deportations—so it must be created to endure for decades. The idea is to send this quilt, upon completion, to various galleries and functions across the country to help raise awareness.

I have years of experience in needlework, sewing and designing so I am capable and willing to help coordinate the effort. If anyone else has similar experience, motivation or just passion please let me know. This group, unlike the contemporary functioning of our government-- will be a democratically organized community.
However, you don’t have to be an artist, designer or even be creative to make a quilt square. All that is needed is a willingness to learn and be spontaneous. I can help anyone who needs advice and can even design specific motifs. I’m sure there will be others willing to assist as well.

I do sincerely believe that art can change social consciousness. Art activists the world over are working diligently to help improve their communities. Right this minute there are thousands of activists, artists and performers who have congregated in Detroit to forge a different world. Change is not only possible, it is necessary.
Change begins with an idea—activists take those ideas and make them a reality. Let us be the immigrant rights activists who change the world for the better. If you are interested please contact me.

I can be reached on Facebook under the name Beth Brotherton, Hamilton College or at e-mail: silverwing6700@yahoo.com If you know of anyone else who may be interested please feel free to forward this message. Please, if you have any additional ideas let me know. I want to help forge a strong and unified community so we can help each other.

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/

Another trip to Albany

This past Monday we travelled once again to Albany New York and paid a visit to the office of Homeland Security. After being kept waiting for hours during some of our previous visits we decided that we weren't ever going to give them the opportunity to detain us for an entire day--so we now arrive around 2:00-3:00 PM. That gives Homeland Security only 1-2 hours of our time to waste before the office closes at 4 in the afternoon.

We were not left waiting very long on this particular visit. After only about 10 minutes Khalid's deportation officer came out. Curiously, she came right out and sat opposite us in the waiting room. She usually meets us in the waiting room, however, it was curious that she sat down. Normally she stands up when she speaks to us.

She seemed very relaxed and spoke in a casual manner. She told us that there were no new developments. They haven't procured the travel documents and it was unlikely that they would. She even added that the Indian consulate won't even return her phone calls. I thought it very curious that she divulged that bit of information.

She asked about Khalid's work permit and he mentioned that he had received it. Then she turned to me and started asking me about my work. I wasn't inclined to maintain a long conversation--why? Well..because conversing with a deportation officer is akin to speaking to a police officer while you are under arrest: "anything you say can and will be held against you..." It's best to keep answers short and sweet.

Another curious thing occurred at the end of the meeting. She told us that if it was necessary, to come back in six months. Then she warmly shook my husband's hand and then my hand and said take care.

We were both shocked because she had never shook our hands before but had always maintained a professional, assertive and detached demeanor. My husband and i spent a substantial portion of the drive back to Utica contemplating these strange happenings. We both agreed it felt as if she was saying goodbye--but why?

Was she planning on leaving Homeland Security? It is no secret that employees who work for Homeland Security have low job satisfaction.

Are they going to be transferring Khalid to a Syracuse office? She has mentioned that its a possibility that a DHS/ICE office may be opening up in Syracuse.

Or does she have an inclination that the waiver may be approved? She did mention that the excludability waiver has the best chance of being approved.

We will just have to wait to find out. In the meantime Khalid and I will look forward to the upcoming Summer season without having to fear separation. That is a blessing beyond measure!

Memorial #2: Farouk Abdel-Muhti

Farouk Abdel-Muhti in detention

Farouk 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.

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 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.

A Stinkweed by any other name...

There is a significant amount of information available from newspapers, books, reporters and personal accounts of immigrants to justify characterizing Homeland Security as being a racist institution. Some writers and journalist use felicitous words such as nativism or prefer to defend xenophobic policies by proclaiming them as necessary in order to safeguard American lives, but despite being cloaked in misleading semantics these dubious actions are obviously rooted in centuries of sublimated racism.

To paraphrase a popular cliché: a stinkweed by any other name still smells as sour.

This post was inspired, in part, by a recent New York Times article posted on July 25, 2009 entitled: Racist Web Posts Traced to Homeland Security.

An article appeared in a local newspaper about the DHS raid of a migrant farm in Western New York that elicited a rash of racist commentary, some of which were traced in an investigation to Homeland Security computers.

This is not the first time Homeland Security and their employees have been accused of racism. In 2003, two African American women were terminated from their jobs and replaced by two white men. Subsequently they placed a lawsuit against the agency charging it with discrimination.

Indeed, when reviewing the hiring practices of Homeland Security it becomes clear that Caucasians are preferred over minorities. Over sixty percent of employees are Caucasian*

Creating a workforce comprised of mainly white employees indoctrinated into American exceptionalism, the supremacy of Western civilization, xenophobia-- and who are not familiar with the lifestyles and vulnerabilities of an immigrant population they have jurisdiction over can easily translate into callous and racist acts. When these ideologies are institutionalized it becomes easy to blur the line between safeguarding American interests and crossing over into dangerous territory and engaging in blatant expressions of racism.

One has to wonder how much desensitization must occur in a workplace to render racist actions as commonplace and benign.

One such instance occurred in 2007. A Homeland Security employee wore a blackface/prison costume with long dreadlocks to work for Halloween. He was awarded a prize by Julie Myers, Assistant Secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. After a significant amount of criticism surfaced after posting pictures on an internet site , she later apologized to the National Association of African Americans in DHS for the incident, but not before damage was done to the agency’s already tarnished reputation.

It should come as no surprise that Homeland Security participates in racism. The Immigration and Naturalization Service-- once an independent agency (now incorporated into the larger division of Homeland Security)-- has a long history of racist policies and comments made by officials. The following quotes are from a former Western Regional Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the 1980’s:

“Harold Ezell, was infamous for comments made about ‘illegal aliens’—that they should be ‘caught, skinned and fried.’ Senator Dennis DeConcini reportedly complained that Ezell used the term “wets”, apparently a shortened version of the pejorative term ‘wetbacks’, to refer to undocumented immigrants seeking to cross the Rio Grande.”*


There is presupposition towards discrimination and racism in an institution that is designed to function simultaneously as a public service agency that naturalizes the newest influx of mostly black/brown immigrants into American society and a militarized retribution unit that imprisons and deports the same group of immigrants. Militarization and public service do not make compatible bedfellows simply because they operate under different assumptions and aspire to dissimilar goals. One of the two must become dominant-- and it is obvious which one triumphed based on the large number of charges and lawsuits that have been filed against Homeland Security because of their aggressive and racists tactics.

The moral panic that ensued against Muslims after September 11th created ample opportunity to engage in government sanctioned racism. Despite the fact that the perpetrators were Arab Muslims, this racial profiling ensnared all black or brown minorities. This can be witnessed in the numerous workplace raids that target businesses that hire substantial numbers of minority workers. Unfortunately, many U.S. citizens, and green card holders have also been “mistakenly” lassoed in these raids and have been subjected to interrogations, detentions and sometimes even deportations simply based on the color of their skin. This posturing is also observable in the numbers of black and brown people who are detained and interrogated at airports.

Racism is also evident within the many rogue local police offices that enforce immigration law with Homeland Security’s blessings. Without provocation, many immigrants are pulled over in their cars by police officers and asked for documentation that proves they are in the country legally. Their only transgression is looking like an illegal alien: which normally requires being a black or brown minority. If they are unable to provide documentation they are locked up in jail cells. Such aggressive policies sanctioned infamously by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona are currently being investigated by the Department of Justice, but not until numerous abuses of power and rampant racial profiling have destroyed many immigrants lives.

We must stop concealing racist agendas under the pretense of national security. There is no evidence that indicates that immigrants, illegal or otherwise, commit more crimes than citizens. Many studies have showed the opposite to be true. We cannot hold entire groups of black and brown people accountable for the terrorist activities of a few degenerate individuals. Racism lives whether we label it xenophobia, nativism or ethnic cleansing.

To use another cliché in its original form: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.



· (Source) http://www.citizenorange.com/orange/2008/02/photos-surface-of-ice-employee.html


Other sources:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2009/07/26/20090726dhs-suit0726.html

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/67442/homeland_security_employee_wore_%22blackface%22_costume_at_work_all_day/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/nyregion/25immig.html?_r=2

http://www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/racialjustice/40069prs20090630.html

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/aug/18/me-land-law-amendment-targetsvestigesofracism/

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

Dear Diary--I am the wife of an Immigrant

These are the musings of me, a wife of an Indian/Muslim immigrant who has been given a mandate of deportation by the U.S. government. Currently, we are still living together, safe, in New York..but we are unsure how long this will last. The truth is, my husband could be ripped out of my arms any time and stoically deposited-- like some unpleasant trash-- on the shores of a country he hasn't stepped foot in for over 25 years.

It is my hope, that through the recording of my thoughts, anxieties, hopes and disappointments that I put a human face on a contemporary American tragedy. The public needs to know how dysfunctional the immigration judicial system is and how it negatively affects immigrants as well as the millions of American citizens who depend and love them. This is a nightmare that effects Americans and immigrants equally but has been hidden from the public. I plan on changing that.

Who am I? I am a 41 year old Caucasian woman--imperfect, terminally naive, emotional and creative. I am tall, heavy-set and look and act young for my age--which is a rare source of pride for me--I feel having a young attitude is essential for living a fulfilling life. In truth--I am not anyone special but have been thrust into extraordinary circumstances.

I have always suspected that human beings are tested by seemingly insurmountable challenges in their lives--not just once, but multiple times. These challenges are meant to strengthen us--but only if we meet them head-on, follow our guts and break out of the narrowly defined molds we have created for ourselves. If we approach a challenge with our usual entrenched beliefs and outdated actions we will fail to meet and vanquish it. On some higher level I sense I am being challenged, not only to mature, fend for myself and stand up for my beliefs but also to question my culturally conditioned ideas--about morality, justice and power.

Wallowing in self-pity, and fears of bad karma and victim-hood are of scant help. Unfortunately, I have wallowed in every negative emotion since I was first aware of my husband's immigration nightmare --this has been my shame--and I fear--an affront to the strength, integrity and kindness I witness in my husband daily. It is a mystery to me how my husband has dealt with this catastrophe these past nine years with optimism and grace. I fail in this miserably and am intermittently immersed in anger, doubt, and anguish that wallows up occasionally in the cracks of my optimism. I try very hard not to show my anxiety to my husband and thus add to his substantial burdens, but it is very difficult due to my highly developed imagination.

As a child, I was very imaginative and creative. I was a daydreamer and an idealist. Still are-- for the most part. I was brought up as an only child in the relative comfort of a middle class upbringing. My father was a high school teacher in a suburban district and my Mom was a secretary/typist on and off. Money was an issue for the first few years of my life but as my father continued teaching in the same institution his salary increased. In school, I excelled in artistic endeavors and loved to read and my grades were adequate despite the fact that I seldom studied.

I was extremely shy-- so much so that I actually won a "Silence is Golden" award in sixth grade. I had a few close friends but never felt the need to surround myself with endless banter and small talk. I preferred riding the whims of my own mind in words and pictures. If I did talk it was only when I had something important to say. This is still true. The fact is, my up-bringing was normal. There were never any great hardships nor tragedies in my life. I had a stable family life. Any hints at the precariousness of my future were missing.

I dated a bit but none of the men I dated felt like a good fit for me--until I met Khal at age 38--in 2005. We were immediately drawn together. There resided in Khalid a tender heart,--an integrity and quiet strength that appealed to me--specifically because I did not see any of these desirable traits in any of the other men I had previously dated. He was steadfast, calm, obviously intelligent and educated, incredibly handsome and appealingly mysterious. He spoke and wrote perfect English, (which could not be said for the other men I had dated.) and I had assumed he was an America citizen by the way he carried himself and the absence of an accent. I fell in love with him immediately and felt the same depth of feeling emanating from him. He was the first man I fell deeply in love with...and the last. We were looking forward to a great future.