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.

Acknowledging prejudice

I recently had a discussion with a friend about acknowledging the fact that all of us have certain prejudices. Just a few hours later I saw a similar posting on a blog that I regularly follow. It's funny how often synchronicity occurs during my life! As I've gotten older, I like to think I've gotten wiser and have learned to make a mental note of these curious occurrences.

Incidentally, I remember a lecture given by a professor years ago. I don't remember what class it was , but it was likely a philosophy or sociology class. The subject was about uncovering your internal prejudices. The professor explained that we all have prejudices--against certain people, races, ethnicity's or even people with certain religions affiliations. No one is immune. It takes a substantial amount of soul searching and honest assessment for a person to unveil their internal prejudices simply because they are covered over by cultural conditioning that we rarely question.

I'll give a personal example--I never knew that I had a bias against Muslim men. I didn't know that I had this prejudice until I met Khalid. My ideas about Muslim men were shaped by American culture and particularly the Western media which normally portrays Muslim men as being controlling, uncivilized, irrational and prone to violence. One such movie that incorporated all of these misconceptions is entitled Not Without my Daughter starring Sally Fields. The following synopsis is taken from the following website:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102555/plotsummary

"Moody" is an Iranian doctor living in America with his American wife Betty and their child Mahtob. Wanting to see his homeland again, he convinces his wife to take a short holiday there with him and Mahtob. Betty is reluctant, as Iran is not a pleasant place, especially if you are American and female. Upon arrival in Iran, it appears that her worst fears are realized: Moody declares that they will be living there from now on. Betty is determined to escape from Iran, but taking her daughter with her presents a larger problem. "

As can be imagined, Moody, the Muslim man portrayed in the story is the worst example of masculinity. He completely dominates his American wife, beats her, forbides her to go anywhere without him and ultimately locks her in the apartment. I remember being horrified that a man could treat his wife in such a way.

This movie had a profound influence on me and how I view Muslim men. I didn't realize this until I met Khalid and he told me he was Muslim. Instantly, that movie began to play in my head, along with numerous other stereotypes we as Americans are indoctrinated in. I hesitated in fear for a moment, wondering if it was wise for me to get involved with this man.

Luckily, I rose above my prejudice and got to know Khalid. What I found was a man who shattered all my previous conceptions about Muslims. Khalid is thoughtful, easy going, open-minded, kind, patient, peaceful and certainly non-violent. My personal experience in getting to know and love Khalid has allowed me to rise above my previously held bias against Muslim men. My life has been made all the richer because of it.

In conclusion, my wish for everyone who reads this blog is to get to know someone who shatters your prejudice. Whatever bias you hold, I sincerely hope that you allow someone into your life that challenges that stereotype. The truth is, no one should be limited by stereotypes and cultural conditioning. We are so much more than the labels placed upon us. We can learn and grow so much more by letting people into our lives, rather than barricaded them outside.

Shelving immigration reform

Recently I’ve seen a lot of headlines in the news that proclaim President Obama is shelving immigration reform until 2010. He has said it was more important to get health care reform on track and to deal with energy issues before any meaningful work is done on immigration reform.

To say I am disappointed is an understatement. I had voted for Obama, at least in part, because he promised that immigration reform would be a priority during the first year of his administration. I had hoped that he would at least implement some sort of dialogue about the Family Reunification Act: an amendment to current immigration law statutes which would allow an immigrant facing deportation to stay in The United States if they have a spouse or children who are U.S. citizens. This sounds like a reasonable and prudent law and one that should have never been changed.

Obviously, the passing of this law would help Khalid and I and thousands of couples like us. Now, our hopes are dashed because we don’t think we can wait until next year for immigration reform. Witnessing the quagmire of the current debate about health care reform and the resulting unpleasantness of the entire process, I surmise that immigration reform will be even more difficult to procure.

There are many people who are against immigration reform—or at least any reform that would help immigrants. Unfortunately, I find that the majority of people who are against it are not sufficiently aware of the bigger picture. This is where I want to make a difference. As a result of my blog, I get the sense that I have made changes in a few people’s opinions and this is satisfying—but I don’t feel I am doing enough. I need to reach more people and I’m not sure how to do this.

I would love to make more speeches, but so far the venues I have been in have been small. I feel stuck. If anyone has any ideas about how I can get my message out, please contact me. I will seriously consider any suggestions

A Distinction Between Aliens

Few people realize that there exists a distinction in immigration law between different types of “illegal aliens”. The media tends to lump all aliens together. Not all aliens are created—or defined equally in the quagmire known as the U.S. immigration judicial system.

As a result of the contemporary wave of xenophobia all “illegal” aliens are criminalized-- even those immigrants who overstay their VISA’s which is legally considered a civil violation. James Sensenbrenner, a U.S. Representative explains in the following quote:

"...under current law, illegal entry into the United States makes an alien subject to a Federal criminal misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of 6 months in prison. However, unlawful presence itself, such as by overstaying a visa, is not a criminal offense, but only a civil ground of inadmissibility...

This distinction really doesn’t make a big difference because both violations are treated the same way in the courts and are likely to end in deportation. The only observable difference is that criminal violations can result in jail time-- which translates into wasteful spending of millions of taxpayer dollars.

Additionally, trials for immigrants, who commit both criminal and civil violations, follow the same scenario. Whether the immigrant has committed a civil or criminal violation they must come before an immigration judge in a separate court system run by the Department of Justice.

The immigration judge conducts the entire trial. He is judge, jury and executioner. The only other people within the room are the accused immigrant, and-- if the immigrant can afford one: an immigration lawyer. The immigration judge asks questions, determines whether the alien qualifies for some form of relief or asylum status. Otherwise, the deportation mandate is normally reinstated or is handed out.

There is no jury-- nor is legal counsel available for the immigrant unless the immigrant can afford one. Consequently, many immigrants are unable to afford legal counsel and are compelled to defend themselves. As imagined, this can be nearly impossible for an immigrant who doesn’t speak English or doesn’t understand American culture.

Additionally, immigration law is very complicated and changes constantly. Most Americans find it difficult navigating in the tumultuous seas of immigration law, imagine how impossible it would be for an immigrant to stay afloat?

Proceedings in immigration court are distinctly different than those conducted in criminal courts. Whereas there are certain safeguards put in place to protect the accused, no such protections are extended to immigrants. Basically, once the accused is charged with a criminal or civil violation of immigration law, it is up to the accused to prove they are innocent.

The idea of “innocent until proven guilty” does not apply in immigration courts. Furthermore, in the past, immigration judges were allowed some leniency in handing out deportation mandates, depending on individual mitigating circumstances. This is no longer true. Judges are now compelled by law to hand out deportations no matter what the circumstances are--unless the alien qualifies for some sort of relief. The granting of relief and the approval of asylum status is rarely meted out.

There has been a movement within conservative groups to make overstay a criminal violation as well. The following excerpt, taken from Deseret News in Utah on 12/30/2005 explains further:

"Right now, illegal aliens are in violation of immigration regulations. Freeway speedsters are bigger scofflaws. But to jack unlawful residency violations up to felonies shows not only callousness, but a lack of imagination on the part of lawmakers. It also displays a complete lack of understanding of the havoc the move will create. If the House has its way, when the student visa of a father of four from India expires, when a tourist from England overstays her welcome or a contracted worker from Colombia doesn't get his papers renewed on time, they become 'desperadoes' -- desperate criminals on a par with the thugs who rob liquor stores at gunpoint. Please. The only desperate souls here are the lawmakers who choose to throw good people in the clink and throw up their hands because they are bankrupt of ideas."

Making overstay a criminal violation poses many problems for lawmakers, not the least of which is determining where to house a substantial influx of more immigrant “criminals”. Maybe we should just reopen Alcatraz for all the immigrants who have suddenly been rendered “dangerous criminals” of the highest order.

It will be interesting to observe how these lawmakers are going to convince the American public to funnel millions of dollars for the jailing of these benign violators of immigration law.


Maybe a more creative solution is appropriate. Perhaps, we should just kick all the rapists, murderers and pedophiles out of our prisons and replace them with the dangerous, degenerate and blood thirsty throng known as “illegal aliens”. tsk tsk...

Like tip-toeing through a mindfield

Khalid and I have made a critical decision. We have decided to file the adjustment of status papers, and the excludibility waiver that should negate his inadmissible status. It has cost us over 1,500 dollars to file all these papers, but it may be our best--and last chance.


Despite the fact that we have gotten some contradictory information about Khalid's ability to file the waivers we are acting on our gut instinct. We have reason to believe that this might actually work. Perhaps, at a later time I will discuss the conclusions that we have come to that have prodded us to act. For now, lets just say that some of the pieces of this perplexing immigration puzzle have finally come into place.

Technically, and legally speaking he should be able to adjust his status with the filing of the excludibility waiver. Basically, this waiver states that he can adjust his status because it has been 15 years since his conviction for reckless endangerment. He has shown himself to be a good and moral individual and has lead an exemplary life since 1993.


I also have a compelling hardship waiver that uses medical, financial and personal statements that prove I would have profound hardships should my husband be deported from the United States.


Additionally, we possess an approved I-130 VISA petition which states that our marriage is bona-fide and allows Khalid back into the country should he be compelled to leave. This is important because we have been told this is one of the hardest documents to procure.


Today we received a notice from Homeland Security notifying Khalid of a Biometric appointment in Syracuse on August 27th at 8:00 AM. Biometrics sounds like a new aerobic routine but it is actually an appointment whereby Khalid's fingerprints and other vital statistics are documented. We may even be interviewed. This is a necessary step in the adjustment of status process.


After the appointment we may be left waiting for 6-7 months until they make a determination. Until that time we will be on pins and needles. It is entirely possible that they will deny the petition and waivers. In that case, we would be forced to reapply when-- and if-- Khalid is actually deported. Yes, that would mean the U.S. government would get an additional 1,500 dollars of our hard-earned money. Gotta love the capitalistic spirit!


The filing of the papers should stop any attempts at deporting my husband. I say "should" because we are dealing with the government, and basically, if they get it in their heads to do something--they find a way.


Because Khalid has an American wife, it should afford him some protections that other deportees do not enjoy. He has noticed some significant changes in how Homeland Security has treated him since being married to me.


But, in the mercurial winds of the U.S. immigration judicial system there is no way of knowing if any of this will do any good. During the entire duration of this precarious immigration situation it feels like we are tip-toeing through a minefield. We never know what small steps we take will result in explosions and detriment and what large leaps might lead to safety and freedom.

We are taking a gigantic leap of faith. What we need more than anything are prayers and good wishes...so please...add us to your prayers this week. Thank you!

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.

Disposable bodies

Grace Chang wrote about the plight of undocumented woman immigrants in her book Disposable Domestics: Immigrant Women Workers in the Global Economy. She characterizes these woman as being disposable for several reasons. The most integral reason is that undocumented workers are necessary for the functioning of American society yet they are simultaneously cast aside for cheaper employees and then run out of the country.

Let me repeat that: undocumented workers are necessary for the stability of the American economy...

As a side note here: woman are particularly exploitable because of their subjugated status in society--yes, even our modern society. The fact that thousands of woman are assaulted, raped and killed in America every year attests to the fact that woman are still considered second class citizens. Furthermore, woman are still paid seventy cents to every man's dollar.

Why does the American economy need undocumented workers? America's economic system is capitalistic. Capitalism always needs surplus labor in order to expand. In capitalistic societies, in order for the consumerist machine to keep functioning it needs to keep a large pool of cheap, highly exploitable workers in the wings for future utilization.

Additionally, different segments of the working population are pitted against each other in an endless competition for the few jobs that are available. Sexism, racism and xenophobia are all societal ills that capitalism uses to its advantage.

This is evident with the observable increase of sexism and racism in economic downturns: like the one we are having now. This inherent competition allows capitalists to continually drive wages down for every worker.

Undocumented workers are the most exploitable and vulnerable workers in America. Employers do not have to offer any benefits, pensions, vacations, or health insurance to these particular employees. More importantly, employers of undocumented workers do not have to follow labor laws.

Additionally, undocumented workers do not get any government assistance in the form of social security benefits, welfare, food stamps, etc. The idea that undocumented workers drain funds from national coffers is a myth.

After the last round of so-called "immigration reform" in the mid 1990's all benefits were withdrawn from undocumented workers. Realistically speaking; undocumented workers prop up the American economy--they do not drain it dry.

Within this new super-capitalistic global economy, woman are not the only disposable bodies. Any black, brown or immigrant worker is also rendered disposable.

America needs to acknowledge its own role in the influx of undocumented workers into our borders and our contradictory attitudes toward them . On one hand we encourage the migration of illegal workers into our country simply because we can not afford to hire natives to do certain labor intensive and menial work. On the other hand we are persecuting the same people for residing and working illegally.

In addition, we need to hold ourselves accountable for the influence America holds within international lending institutions like the IMF and The World Bank. The lending policies of these institutions commonly undermine economic sustainability in developing countries. Many writers including Joseph Stiglitz, former head of The World Bank, has documented these abuses.


Consequently, many world citizens find themselves unable to provide the basic necessities for their families. They have no choice but to migrate to the centers of capitalism in order to survive. Many of them come here to America.

In conclusion, no human being is disposable.

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.

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.

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.

Inside the Dragon's Lair--Part 1

Slithering in between the tangles of blackthorn and ivy, my husband and I stealthily picked our way through the dense bushes lining the medieval fortress that lay just outside the castle gates. The old gnarly witch in the Obsidian Forest told us Ashcroft Castle was protected by an powerful magic and no one could gain entrance without the purple crystal key. The key was buried underneath Pan's statue which was located near Wygham Lake in the furthest eastern corner of the kingdom. Our goal was to retrieve the key and journey to Ashcroft Castle; find a doorway in the fortress marked with a rune called raido: a symbol that approximates the look of a letter "r" with a slightly askew leg on one end. It was here that my husband could find an ancient document that would finally grant him his freedom.

Finding the purple crystal key was relatively easy, except for the few ornery trolls we had put to sleep with a tranquility spell. Trolls aren't easily susceptible to serenity and it took our combined efforts along with a sharp hit on the noggin of one particularly difficult troll to ensure the entire group got it's fair share of tranquility.

However, trying to find the doorway with the rune mark was particularly difficult. We had circled the entire fortress and had not discovered the necessary doorway. They all looked the same: plain withered planks of splintered wood with an odd diamond shaped keyhole.

The only protection that was offered to us was the dense brush of blackthorn and we often had to jump quickly back into those thorny bushes when the King's Brigade came by. Once they marched a safe distance away we ran to the next nearest door. I quickly pulled the crystal key from a pocket deep in my bronze cloak. There wasn't a discernible mark on the expanse of the door but I tried to fit the key in the lock anyway and was amazed when both the key and the lock eerily metamorphosed shape into the mark of the rune. The knob turned and we carefully pushed the door open.

A magnificent garden greeted our tired and surprised eyes. I had to blink multiple times before my eyes could adjust to the penetrating golden light and the flurry of color. It was unlike any garden I had seen: filled with meandering plants of such girth and height that obscured every object in the garden with a thousand flourishes of unusual blooms. In the middle of the courtyard there was a glittering gold fountain and torrents of silvery liquid that cascaded over multi layered tiers of stone chiseled seashells.

On either side of the fountain, approximately 1000 feet apart, stood two massive black gargoyle sculptures with terrifying grimaces and large, slightly oblong ears that diminished to long, curled tips at the ends. Their sleek and massive wings stood immobile but partially unfurled on either side as their twisted and slick talons held a stone sphere cruelly in each paw. I looked at them in fascination for a few minutes and then slowly turned to catch my husband's gaze. But as my head started to turn I could have sworn my eyes registered some movement in my peripheral vision. I quickly turned back to look at the statue but it was completely still. Bemused I was about to say something to my husband when I heard him say: "Beth, get behind me."

My head snapped quickly back to my husband. The alarm in his voice was initiated by an animated gargoyle towering over my husband in a predatory stance. He was about four feet away from him, close enough for the monster's breathe to move the hair on my husband's head.

A loud growl ensued from a different direction and I swiveled my head to the left and gazed in horror at the visage of the other gargoyle. He was no longer perched benignly on the marble pedestal but was instead flapping his wings passionately and focusing his red eyes intently in my direction. From a distance, I heard the deep, evil cry of the other gargoyle, but I could not turn my attention from the monster in front of me. I gripped the spear at my side and raised it slowly. I took a quick step forward but the gargoyle was quicker and knocked the spear out of my hands with his long snout.

I deftly dodged the flap of his massive left wing and took cover under the billowy leaves of a willow tree. I had to get my spear back-- and fast. The stupid beast was not aware of my hiding place and seemed to be looking for me on the dense bushes of blackthorn. I ran out from under the cover of the willow and grabbed my spear. The gargoyle turned in pursuit. As it lunged for me I raised the spear and threw it right into the monster's heart. The creature stumbled, stopped and then collapsed-- all the while snorting and thrashing to the ground.

I turned and looked for my husband. The other beast had also collapsed to the ground but I could not find my husband. I called for him but heard nothing in return. After what seemed to be an eternity I finally heard the muffled voice of my husband. I ran to where the sound came from. I saw my husband's hand peaking out from under the wing of the massive beast. Grunting with the effort, I lifted the wing just enough for my husband to crawl out.

"That was a close one", he said as he wiped the sweat from his forehead. He grinned sheepishly and added, "After this-- the rest should be a piece of cake."

From behind us we heard the loudest shriek we have ever heard in our lives. It sounded like a cross between an eagle, a lion and the wail of a colicky baby. The ground shook with the massive creature's substantial weight. We turned quickly to see the body of a gargantuan iridescent green dragon looking at us with a gaze of pure hatred.

I was frozen in fear and the only thought that came clearly to mind was that it wasn't going to be all that easy to gain my husband's freedom.

Ok..time for some truth-telling: the trip to Homeland Security wasn't quite as bad as the former story. However, the drama queen in me couldn't help embellishing the real story a trifle. And of course--I'm sure you have surmised already-- Khalid was safely returned home.Otherwise, I wouldn't have been up for such story-telling. In all honesty, this whole situation seems surreal and much like a fantasy novel: with unseen enemies, surprises, miracles and hazardous journeys. So the fantasy story seemed strangely appropriate.

Indeed, the trip went well. We were only kept waiting for about 20 minutes--a record. Usually we are there for three hours or more. Khalid's Deportation Officer was very nice and congenial. She told us there were no new developments and to come back in three months. There were no trolls, no gargoyles and no dragon. There was also no freedom for my husband either.....so at least that part was true!

Senseless

The word senseless has flickered through my mind during this whole immigration ordeal. Although it is completely pointless I keep trying to determine why Homeland Security is adamant about deporting my husband. What is the advantage of spending thousands of dollars and countless hours in order to deport him? How exactly is the deportation of my husband going to make America a better and safer place? What possible good can come out of deporting a husband, an employee and a tax payer? My husband is not a terrorist, a drug addict or drug dealer. He has never physically hurt or abused anyone! The man does not possess one mean, callous or disrespectful bone in his body. The deportation of my husband will not result in anything positive or good--it will only result in misery and strife.

And if they were so intent on deporting him, why didn’t they just do so the first time he was in detention in 2003? These are all questions I will never have the answer to—and it is driving me insane. Why in the world did the U.S. government allow him to adjust his status before the 2nd circuit hearing and then rescind it? Unfortunately, I cannot stop myself from pondering the reasons why this senseless situation is unfolding this way.

In addition to all these questions, I can’t help but think about everything Khalid has been through and how this situation has affected him mentally and physically. He has been separated from his family since the late 1980’s. I cannot fathom what that was like and how lonely he must have felt during these years. And now, in addition to everything else he has lost, he is now being separated from his wife here in the States. He has worked hard his whole life, even holding down two jobs while doing countless hours of overtime, training other people and taking any additional challenges his employer has asked of him. None of this has made a bit of difference.

Some people answer this question by saying that life just isn’t fair. No, life isn’t fair. But does that justify the horrible, wretched, inhumane things people do to each other? Life is all about distributing scarce resources and determining who gets a larger chunk of the pie and who is left fighting for the crumbs. The scarcest resource of all is love and the bitterest struggle: its procurement.

I am reminded of a wonderful Indian author named Arundhati Roy and her book The God of Small Things. If you haven't read it I recommend it highly. In this book she explores the nature of love and how it is artificially distributed in society based upon arbitrary designations of rank, wealth and power. More specifically the story centers around the tragic love story between an upper class Indian woman and a poor Untouchable laborer. A particular quote from the book comes to mind and I will share it with you now:

"They all broke the rules. They all crossed into forbidden territory. They all tampered with the laws that lay down who should be loved and how. And how much."

This quote has become quite poignant to me now. I realize that the problems our country is currently facing: including the debate about gay marriage, the excesses of greed, racism, sexism and the discriminatory immigration judicial system; can all be linked by this distribution of love-- and who deserves it and who doesn't.

So, here I am, sitting in my living room-- ironically watching a special on Michael Jackson and fearing that this will be the last day I will spend with my husband and wondering where our share of the love is.....