Passover is the holiday where we remember the Jews’ exodus from slavery in Egypt. As we all know, it didn’t end well for the Egyptians, what with the 10 plagues (including death of the first born – oy vey!), and then the business about drowning in the Red Sea.
The Passover Seder is the meal where we re-tell the story of the Exodus. At the Seder, we dip our finger (or a spoon for the germ-o-phobes among us) into our wine 10 times, and remove one drop each time. This reminds us that the joy of our liberation is diminished by the suffering of the Egyptians.
Don’t you Jews eat any other part of the Matzah?
I often think about how the source countries for my clients are affected by my clients’ departure. Many of my clients are well educated and talented people. They are exactly the type of people the source countries need in order to improve. The only problem is that such people are often targeted by fascist regimes (like the Syrian government) or extremists movements (like the Taliban).
Some would argue that people like my clients should stay in their countries and work (or fight) for change. That is easy to say for people who do not live in such places, and who do not face threats to themselves and their family members. Many of my clients did, in fact, work for change in their countries before they left. For example, I am about to file the case of an Afghan man who worked for various NGOs helping children and women. After receiving many threats, he was brutally attacked with a knife (necessitating numerous surgeries), and finally fled for his life. His case is in some ways typical of my clients. They continue their good work in the face of death threats, but at some point, they feel compelled to leave. International humanitarian law exists to help such people, and my feeling is that each person needs to make his own decision about whether to stay or go (the Washington Post recently ran a depressing photo essay about this choice in the context of Syria).
One thing that seems obvious is that when such people leave, their home countries are diminished. While I can’t say I pity the persecutors, I do feel bad that good people–people who could make a difference in their home countries–are forced to leave. This harms the people who are left behind and helps create a vicious cycle: Conditions are bad, so good people leave, and then conditions get worse, so more good people leave.
My one hope, which I see with my clients, is that they often remain engaged trying to help their homelands. Many of my clients are journalists and human rights activists. They can continue to support change in their home countries (by working for the media, for human rights organizations or for the U.S. government), while living safely in the United States.
So as we celebrate Passover, I am thankful for freedom and safety. But I will also try to remain cognizant of those who are left behind.
CIVIC–Community Initiatives for Visiting Immigrants in Confinement–is an organization that works to “end the isolation and abuse of men and women in U.S. immigration detention by building and strengthening volunteer-run community visitation programs.” The idea is that if ordinary people visit detained immigrants, the immigrants will feel more connected and more hopeful, and the detention facilities (many of which are run by private, for-profit corporations) will not be able to get away with abusing detainees.
The protection aspect of CIVIC’s mission reminds me of Amnesty International, which calls attention to individuals at risk of abuse through letter writing campaigns. The hope is that if the abuser knows he is being watched, he is less likely to harm the victim.
“Remember… Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies.”
Based on my experience with detained clients, it seems to me that CIVIC’s goals of offering hope and protection to detained immigrants are (unfortunately) very necessary. Many people in immigration detention have no criminal record and are not dangerous to the community. Some are minors. Others are asylum seekers who suffered persecution and torture in their home countries. These people remain detained for months and sometimes years. The emotional (and physical) toll of such detention can be quite devastating.
CIVIC is currently working to expand its visitation program, in accordance with ICE’s Visitation Directive, which was designed to help facilitate visits to detention facilities. In furtherance of this goal, CIVIC has released the following statement:
Every day, immigrants disappear and are detained by the U.S. government. For example, Ana is a human trafficking victim who was detained for over a year, locked in solitary confinement, and forced by a guard to sleep on the cement floor of her cell until CIVIC ended this isolation and abuse. Over 32,000 immigrants like Ana remain isolated in remote detention facilities today because no law protects a right to visitation, phone calls cost up to $5.00 per minute, and 46% of detained migrants are transferred at least twice during their detention–often out of state and away from their families.
CIVIC is changing this reality by building and strengthening community visitation programs that are dedicated to ending the isolation and abuse of men and women in immigration detention. Visitation programs connect persons in civil immigration detention with community members. These volunteer visitors provide immigrants in detention with a link to the outside world, while also preventing human rights abuses by creating a community presence in otherwise invisible detention facilities.
CIVIC recently released A Guide to Touring U.S. Immigration Detention Facilities & Building Alliances, designed for communities across the country hoping to start a visitation program using ICE’s new Visitation Directive. The benefit of this resource is that the general guidelines are tailored to the unique request of using the Visitation Directive as a tool to establish contact and set up a permanent visitation program. In addition, this manual provides an overview of some of the successes and roadblocks visitation programs have encountered in the first year of the Visitation Directive’s existence.
CIVIC is setting in motion a national movement to combat the isolating experience of immigration detention. To get involved or for more information, please visit their website at www.endisolation.org.
In some parts of the country–like the DC metro area–we have a well established visitation program (thank you CAIR Coalition). But in many areas, detained immigrants are much more isolated. For people looking for an interesting and rewarding volunteer experience, CIVIC’s program offers an excellent way to get involved and to help people who are in great need.
Canada is preparing to implement the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act later this year. The law is ostensibly designed to protect Canada’s refugee law by weeding out false asylum claimants. The provisions of the new law include the following:
– The immigration minister would have the power to designate which countries are safe without a committee including human rights experts.
– Rejected refugee claimants from “safe” countries would no longer be able to appeal the decision to the Immigration and Refugee Board (the administrative body that reviews asylum claims).
– Claimants from countries on the safe country list would have limited appeals rights and limited ability to apply for compassionate or humanitarian relief.
The law seems primarily targeted at the Roma (a/k/a Gypsies) who have been coming to Canada from Hungary in large numbers and requesting asylum. According to the Canadian Immigration Minister, “almost 95 percent of Hungarian asylum claims [are] abandoned, withdrawn or rejected.” The Minister states that “Countries whose nationals have an acceptance rate of 25% or less, or where 60% or more of claimants from a country have abandoned or withdrawn their claims … would be subject to designation” as a safe country, thus making it more difficult for them to successfully claim asylum.
Under the new Canadian law, Mexico is “safe.”
My first question about this new law is whether it is necessary. Under the current system, people who can return safely will presumably have their cases denied anyway. The new law is designed to streamline the system to allow people from certain countries to be deported more quickly. Also, if people from “safe” countries know that their claims will likely be denied, they may decide not to seek asylum in Canada in the first place. Proponents of the law claim that all this will save government resources. But I wonder how many people will actually be dissuaded from coming and–for those who do seek asylum–how much money the government will actually save under the new, streamlined system. Currently, 95% of asylum claimants from Hungary are unsuccessful, yet Hungarians keep coming to Canada. If the current (very high) denial rate does not dissuade people from coming, how will the new law? Further, those who seek asylum from “safe” countries are still entitled to certain procedures and benefits. It is unclear how much the Canadian government will save by marginally reducing the protections available to such asylum seekers.
Assuming the law is needed, how effective will it be? The idea of determining in advance whether a country is safe seems antithetical to international refugee law. Someone once said that no country is safe for everyone all the time. If 95% of Roma claims are denied, what type of harm do the remaining 5% face? Also, just because a country has a low overall denial rate for asylum claims does not mean that it is safe. To cite an example from our side of the border, the denial rate for Mexicans is quite high (about 98%), but certain people from Mexico–journalists and human rights activists–face real danger there. Another example–while the overall asylum grant rate for Jamaicans is low, the grant for Jamaicans claiming asylum based on sexual orientation is relatively high. My point is that designating a country “safe” just because the overall grant rate is low will likely result in legitimate asylum seekers being rejected and returned to face persecution.
Despite these (and other) doubts, the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act will go into effect shortly. We will then start to get a clearer idea of whether the law will save resources and how it will affect asylum seekers.
The Nansen Refugee Award has been called the “Nobel Prize for refugee workers.” The award is bestowed annually on a person or group that has “provided extraordinary and dedicated service to the forcibly displaced.” Past honorees include Senator Edward Kennedy, Medecins Sans Frontiers, and Eleanor Roosevelt.
The award is named for Fridtjof Nansen, a polar explorer, diplomat, and the High Commissioner for Refugees for the League of Nations (the precursor to the UN) from 1920 to 1930. Mr. Nansen helped hundreds of thousands of refugees return home or resettle in new countries after World War I. He also organized a relief effort to help famine victims in Russia in 1921 and 1922. For his efforts in Russia, Mr. Nansen received the 1922 Nobel Peace Prize.
Funny how the people with the toughest jobs often have the biggest smiles.
This year’s honoree is Hawa Aden Mohamed, who has helped thousands of displaced women and girls in Somalia. Ms. Mohamed, who is widely known as Mama Hawa, escaped violence in Somalia and was a refugee in Kenya, the U.S., and Canada. She left the (relative) comfort of Canada in 1995 and returned to Somalia, where she established the Galkayo Education Centre for Peace and Development. Through this organization, she has worked to secure women’s rights and bring free schooling, health care, and skills training to nine communities in the Mudug region of Somalia.
In the early days of the Education Centre, it was attacked with rocks, grenades and gunfire. Its gate was bombed. But Mama Hawa and her colleagues did not give up. “We persevered,” she recalled, “and slowly we convinced the elders and the women that what we were doing was for the benefit of the community.”
Today the Education Centre teaches girls and women to see themselves as full members of society who possess fundamental human rights. It openly addresses the issues of female genital cutting, puberty, early marriage, sexual and gender-based violence, and HIV/AIDS. It prepares women to play an active role in achieving peace, reconciliation, democracy, and development in their country.
Mama Hawa will receive the Nansen Award on October 1st in Geneva. If you find yourself in the neighborhood, the ceremony looks to be worth attending. If you would like to learn more about Mama Hawa and her organization, or if you would like to contribute to her worthy cause, you can do so here.
The United States accepted five North Korean refugees in June, bringing the total for FY 2012 to 11, and the total since 2006 to 135, according to Yonhap News Agency.
The refugees entered the country under the North Korean Human Rights Act, which Congress passed in 2004. The Act calls for the provision of financial aid to help improve North Korea’s human rights situation and acceptance of North Korean defectors into the United States. According to DHS (see Table 14), 2006 was the first year we accepted North Korean refugees, and we have accepted between eight and 37 refugees from North Korea each year since then.
Kim Jong Un: If Adolf Hitler and the Pillsbury Doughboy had a child.
Despite its extreme insularity, it is quite clear that the human rights situation in North Korea is an utter disaster. The recent book Escape from Camp 14 by Blaine Harden tells the story of one man’s escape from the most notorious prison in the enormous gulag that is North Korea’s political prison system. The Washington Post review describes the prison:
In Camp 14, children are punished for the political sins of their fathers. Hunger is so omnipotent that every prisoner behaves like “a panicked animal” at mealtimes. Teachers at the camp school beat students to death for minor infractions. Medieval torture devices are employed in dungeon-like underground cells. And human relationships are so degraded that prisoners inform on family members.
Also, according to the Post: “The U.S. government and human rights groups estimate that 150,000 to 200,000 people are now being held in the North’s prison camps.” “Many of the camps can be seen in satellite images, but North Korea denies their existence.”
Most North Korean refugees go to China, where, until recently, they faced repatriation and (probable) torture or execution. However, according to the Shanghaiist website, a few months ago, China announced that it would stop returning North Korean refugees to their country. Assuming this information is correct, it represents a significant step forward for human rights in China and it is obviously good news for the refugees themselves. Between 20,000 and 30,000 North Korean refugees live in China.
The North Korean Human Rights Act was reauthorized in 2008 for four years, and will again need to be reauthorized this fall. Despite all the partisan nonsense on Capitol Hill these days, I suspect that the Act will have support from both parties. Given the mass torture and mass murder perpetrated by the regime in Pyongyang, we should continue to do everything we can to aid those who escape from North Korea.
I recently finished a book about the Quran, and it got me wondering about what Islamic Law (or Shari’ah) has to say about asylum.
Forget the Asylum Primer…
With the help of the mighty Google, I found an interesting paper on the subject from 2009: The Right to Asylum between Islamic Shari’ah and International Refugee Law: A Comparative Study. The study is by Prof. Ahmed Abou-El-Wafa, chief of the department of public international law at Cairo University, and was written for the United Nations. The study was meant to begin a conversation and get feedback from various experts in preparation for publishing the second edition of the study. This conversation is apparently on-going.
Obviously, I am no expert in Shari’ah law, but I reviewed the initial study and I thought I would mention a few highlights. The document begins with a quote from the Quran:
Those who believed and emigrated, and strove in the cause of God, as well as those who hosted them and gave them refuge, and supported them, these are the true believers. They have deserved forgiveness and a generous recompense. (Quranic Surat al-Anfal, “The Spoils of War” [Chapter 8 verse 74]).
Try the Quran instead.
From there, the study sets forth the conditions for granting asylum under Islamic law. For one thing, refugees should be “warmly welcomed… and well treated.” “This is clear from the divine phrase [in the Quran that] those who ‘show their affection to such as came to them for refuge…’ and consequently [they] should not be expelled to the borders (refouled) or denied admission.” Indeed, asylum seekers “should not be rejected , even if the inhabitants of the territory of asylum are in dire poverty… as the [Quran] says, ‘… even though poverty was their (own lot).'” The study further states that “Islam categorically disallows that a refugee be returned to a place where there are fears for his basic freedoms and rights (such as being subjected to persecution, torture, degrading or other treatment).”
Most of the examples in the study involve granting asylum to Muslims, but the law of asylum also extends to non-Muslims who are seeking protection. This is based on a “well-known Islamic principle, i.e. ‘Before the world’s calamities, all sons of Adam (human beings) are equal.'”
The study also discusses the case of a person who enters Muslim territory without permission for the purpose of seeking asylum. While non-Muslims are generally not permitted to enter Muslim lands without permission (and may be severely punished if they do), people who enter for the purpose of seeking asylum are not subject to penalties and should be offered protection.
Interestingly, as in international law, Islamic law lists certain people who are ineligible for asylum. One group that is not eligible are criminals, “particularly those who have committed acts warranting prescribed penalties (hodoud, e.g. willful murder).” Also, people who have committed “grievances” in their home country are ineligible. Here, Islamic law distinguishes between offering asylum and sheltering offenders. The latter is not allowed. Further, a grant of asylum to a specific person “may be coupled with an agreement concluded with him.” Failure to abide by the agreement can have “grave consequences.”
The report concludes that “Observance of this right [to asylum] as enshrined by Islam is a duty for every zealous Muslim.”
While the concept of asylum exists under Shari’ah law, many Islamic countries, including the wealthy Gulf states, have not signed on to international treaties concerning refugees and do not offer asylum to people fleeing persecution. I hope Professor Ahmed’s study reaches those Islamic governments that do not offer protection to refugees. Not only do such governments fail to fulfill the duties incumbent upon all nations; it seems they also fail to fulfill their obligations under Islamic law.
According to a new United Nations report, 2011 was the worst year for refugees since 2000: 4.3 million people were newly displaced; 800,000 of them fled their countries and became refugees (the remaining people were displaced but did not leave their countries, so they do not meet the definition of “refugee;” rather, they are considered IDPs – internally displaced persons).
At the end of 2011, there were 42.5 million displaced people worldwide. That is more than the entire population of Canada. The numbers break down as follows: 15.2 million refugees; 26.4 million IDPs; and 895,000 people in the process of seeking asylum. According to the UN:
“2011 saw suffering on an epic scale. For so many lives to have been thrown into turmoil over so short a space of time means enormous personal cost for all who were affected,” said the UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres. “We can be grateful only that the international system for protecting such people held firm for the most part and that borders stayed open. These are testing times.”
There are more displaced people in the world than the entire population of Canada, though the Canadians probably make more noise.
The UN reports that Afghanistan remains the biggest producer of refugees (2.7 million) followed by Iraq (1.4 million), Somalia (1.1 million), Sudan (500,000) and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (491,000). This is particularly sad given that the top two countries producing refugees are places where we went to war. Obviously, our efforts have not made Iraq and Afghanistan safe, at least not in the minds of the millions of people who have decided that they cannot return home.
Viewed on a 10-year basis, the UN report shows several worrying trends: “One is that forced displacement is affecting larger numbers of people globally, with the annual level exceeding 42 million people for each of the last five years.” “Another is that a person who becomes a refugee is likely to remain as one for many years – often stuck in a camp or living precariously in an urban location.” “Of the 10.4 million refugees under UNHCR’s mandate, almost three quarters (7.1 million) have been in exile for at least five years awaiting a solution.”
The news was not all bad:
Despite the high number of new refugees, the overall figure was lower than the 2010 total of 43.7 million [displaced] people, due mainly to the offsetting effect of large numbers of IDPs returning home: 3.2 million, the highest rate of returns of IDPs in more than a decade.
However, among refugees, “2011 was the third lowest year for returns (532,000) in a decade.”
Despite the high number of refugees, the U.S. resettled less refugees in 2011 than in any year since 2007. In 2011, we resettled 56,419 refugees, which is far less than the proposed ceiling of 80,000 people. For the years before 2011, the figures are as follows: 2010 – 73,311; 2009 – 74,656; 2008 – 60,193; and 2007 – 48,281. According to the Obama Administration:
[The admissions total for FY 2011 were] lower, however, due largely to the introduction of additional security checks during the year, including pre-departure checks shortly before refugees travel to the U.S., instituted mid-year, that enhance the vetting of applicants against intelligence and law enforcement information.
The proposed ceiling for FY 2012 is 76,000 refugees. We will see how many people are actually resettled in the U.S. Given the high number of displaced people worldwide–and considering how many of them are displaced directly as a result of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq–it seems to me that this is the least we can do to assist such people.
Congressman David Rivera (R-FL) recently proposed changes to the Cuban Adjustment Act to prevent Cuban nationals from receiving residency through the Act and then returning to visit Cuba. In a statement on the matter, Rep. Rivera says:
The fact that Cubans avail themselves of the Cuban Adjustment Act citing political persecution, and then quickly travel back to the persecuting country, is a clear and blatant abuse of the law. In fact it is outright fraud being perpetrated on the people and government of the United States. If Cubans are able to travel back to the communist dictatorship then they should not have received the residency benefits associated with the Cuban Adjustment Act and they should lose that benefit immediately. My legislation simply says that any Cuban national who receives political asylum and residency under the Cuban Adjustment Act, and travels to Cuba while still a resident, will have their residency status revoked.
Mr. Rivera states that his intent is to reform the CAA in order to save this important benefit for future generations of Cubans.
Reforming the CAA is like upgrading your 8-track.
It is interesting that a politician from Florida–particularly one with the anti-Castro bona fides of Mr. Rivera–would have the chutzpa to challenge the Cuban American community on this issue. It doesn’t strike me as a particularly wise move politically, even if it makes sense from a policy point of view.
Although I am generally pro-asylum, I have long believed that the CAA should be abolished. The fact that (presumably) many Cubans are returning to the home island for a visit after they receive status in the U.S. just confirms the absurdity of this law. Clearly, all the Cubans taking advantage of the CAA are not refugees in the normal sense of the word. If a Cuban person reaches our shores, he should apply for asylum like everyone else. If he demonstrates a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or particular social group, he should receive asylum. Otherwise, he should be removed from the United States. Mr. Rivera’s proposed reform–which is ostensibly to help preserve the CAA–seems pointless given that the law is simply not worth preserving.
Indeed, the only real justification for the CAA that seems remotely reasonable is that it gives us a propaganda win over Cuba since it demonstrates that lots of Cubans would rather live here than there. Aside from the fact that our country has been enriched by large numbers of Cuban migrants, I don’t see what this propaganda victory has achieved. The CAA was passed in 1966 and–45 years later–the Castro brothers are still in charge.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a pro-immigrant Congresswoman from California, opposes the proposed change to the CAA:
“No matter what the reason for stepping foot in Cuba, you lose your status,” Lofgren said. “If you go to visit family members you haven’t seen in years, you lose your status. If you go to attend a funeral or donate a kidney to a dying relative, you lose your status. If you go to meet with Cuban dissidents with the aim of transitioning Cuba to a democracy, you lose your status.”
Welcome to the world of refugees from every country other than Cuba. Asylum seekers and refugees who return to their home country for any reason, including donating a kidney, risk losing their status in the United States. Again, while I favor offering safe haven to people who need it, I certainly understand why the government would want to cancel a refugee’s immigration status if she returned to her home country. Of course there might be compelling reasons to return home, and so refugees and asylees who do so can sometimes retain their status. But given the limited resources of our asylum system, a presumption in favor of such people losing their status makes sense.
In any case, it seems Mr. Rivera’s proposal is not getting much traction. A more appropriate proposal would be to eliminate the CAA altogether and require Cubans who fear persecution to apply for asylum like everyone else.
In 1982, during the Guatemala civil war, a squad of soldiers led by Lt. Oscar Ramírez Ramos attacked the town of Dos Erres. They killed over 250 people, mostly women and children.
Lt. Ramírez Ramos spared a 3-year-old boy named Oscar, and brought the child home to live with him (the phenomena of persecutors adopting the children of their victims is not as uncommon as you might think–the New Yorker recently had an interesting article about how this played out during Argentina’s Dirty War). After Lt. Ramírez Ramos died in an accident, his family continued to raise Oscar as their own. The family never told him about his past, and he grew up idolizing his “father,” the man who killed his mother and eight siblings.
Tranquilino Castañeda reunited with his son and grandchildren.
Oscar’s real father, Tranquilino Castañeda, was away from home during the attack, and for 30 years, he mourned the death of his wife and children, including Oscar. But last year, an investigation by Guatemalan prosecutors revealed that one son–Oscar–had survived. A DNA test last August confirmed that the two men were father and son, and they were reunited via Skype.
Oscar had come to the United States in 1998, and has been living here illegally since that time. After they learned about each other, Oscar’s father came to the U.S., and the pair reunited after 30 years apart:
“Yesterday I had the chance to see him in person. It is quite different from seeing him on the computer or on pictures,” Tranquilino said. The Guatemalan farmer has green eyes and the leathery skin of someone who has worked in the fields all his life. He is a man of few words. Tranquilino and Oscar, who is 33, met for the first time at a New Jersey airport, just a few hours after Castaneda landed there from Guatemala. [Oscar], his son, traveled to New Jersey from Framingham, Mass., a blue-collar suburb of Boston where he lives with his wife and four children.
After he learned the truth about his family, Oscar decided to seek asylum in the U.S. based on his fear that he would be a target in Guatemala. “The military retains great power in his native land and most atrocities from the 36-year civil war, which ended in 1996, have gone unpunished.” He has a pro bono attorney, R. Scott Greathead, and his asylum interview is set for June 21, 2012.
Given that his case is so high profile, he probably has a good chance for success. But one issue will be that his father has been living in Guatemala for all these years and has testified against the soldiers responsible for the Dos Erres massacre (one of the soldiers was sentenced to 6,060 years in prison). If the father lives in Guatemala in relative safety, it may be difficult for Oscar to demonstrate that he will face harm.
It seems to me that another basis for him to remain in the U.S. is humanitarian asylum (I imagine he is also eligible for Cancellation of Removal if his case ends up before an Immigration Judge). Under humanitarian asylum, Oscar could remain in the United States if he demonstrates “compelling reasons for being unwilling or unable to return to the country arising out of the severity of the past persecution.” It may be a bit novel, but the facts of the case–his family’s massacre, his abduction by the man (at least partly) responsible for their deaths, and growing up with that man’s family–may constitute compelling reasons why Oscar cannot return to Guatemala.
With humanitarian asylum, even if it is now safe for Oscar to return to Guatemala, he can obtain asylum based on the severity of the persecution he previously suffered. What is interesting here is that Oscar did not know until recently that he had been persecuted. Generally, asylum seekers are entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and here–where the harm was so severe–humanitarian asylum seems appropriate.
Conservative blogger Debbie Schlussel has made a name for herself fighting “radical Islam,” which to her is synonymous with any form of Islam. For instance, in response to Osama bin Laden’s death, she wrote “One down, 1.8 billion to go… many of ’em inside U.S. borders.” Regarding the teenagers murdered in last year’s massacre in Norway, she writes:
Now these kids’ families know what it feels like to be victims of the Islamic terrorists whose Judenrein boycotts and terrorist flotillas against Israel they support.
Passover reminds us not to rejoice in the downfall of our enemies, even the really annoying ones.
She refers to the victims, who were as young as 14 years old, as “hateful, privileged brats.” Their crime according to Ms. Schlussel–some of them expressed support for Palestinian rights and boycotting Israel.
You would think that mocking murder victims and calling for genocide against Muslim men, women, and children would put Ms. Schlussel outside the boundaries of civilized conversation. Her work might be appropriate for a neo-Nazi website like Stormfront (though I imagine they won’t have her since she purports to be Jewish), but not for the main stream media. Unfortunately, Ms. Schlussel appears regularly in the New York Post and the Jerusalem Post, as well as other media outlets.
The thing about her is that not only is she hateful, but she is a liar. When the facts don’t support her miserable view of the world, she makes up facts to help fuel her hate (and her readers’ hate). This is certainly the case with TPS for Syrians. She writes:
Barack Obama and Janet Napolitano just gave thousands of Syrian Muslims–all of them either sympathizers with Hezbollah or the Muslim Brotherhood–permission to stay in the United States forever.
The Syrians in our midst–many of them here illegally–will now be untouchable by ICE (which isn’t arresting illegal aliens, anyway) for at least 18 months on the books. But, as we know, in each case in which the U.S. has granted TPS for 18 months, the aliens got to stay forever.
And to add insult to injury: these people, as with the Libyans and others who were granted TPS by Obama, will be able to work without restrictions in the U.S.–taking jobs from U.S. citizens.
Of course the first lie is that Syrians in America sympathize with Islamic terrorist groups. There is no evidence what-so-ever to support this claim. Indeed, the Syrians I have met in the U.S. oppose Islamic extremism and oppose the Assad regime (one of my clients–a medical doctor–was arrested and held in a torture prison on account of his opposition to the regime).
A second lie is that the Syrians, “as with the Libyans and others who were granted TPS,” will stay in the U.S. forever. First of all, Ms. Schlussel is wrong (or more likely just made up a “fact” to suit her argument)–Libyans were never granted TPS in the United States. Second, there is no reason to believe Syrians will stay here “forever.” While TPS has been extended repeatedly for certain countries (mostly in Central America), that has not been the case for other countries, like Liberia, and–according to the Center for Immigration Studies (a restrictionist organization)–TPS for Sudan is winding down.
A third lie (and I simply don’t have time to address them all) is that Syrians in the U.S. are “untouchable by ICE (which isn’t arresting illegal aliens, anyway).” In general, people with criminal convictions are not eligible for TPS. Further, if a person with TPS commits a crime or if there is reason to believe that he is a security threat, he can–and probably will–be arrested. Finally, contrary to Ms. Schlusser’s claim that we are not arresting illegal aliens, DHS has deported record numbers of aliens during each year of the Obama administration.
It’s too bad that Ms. Schlussel’s lies are able to distort the public dialogue on this important issue. It’s also too bad that a person who claims to be the “granddaughter of immigrant Holocaust survivors” would perpetrate the same type of hatred and lies that led to the Holocaust. I expect better from my fellow Jews.
Thank you to guest blogger William Holston, the new Executive Director of Human Rights Initiative of North Texas, who agreed to share his experience moving from private practice to the non-profit world:
On January 15, I left my law practice of thirty years to become Executive Director of Human Rights Initiative of North Texas, a non-profit organization that provides pro bono legal services for asylum seekers and individuals seeking relief under VAWA, U-Visa, and SIJ visas.
Bill Holston (I love this photo--very dramatic).
Thirty years ago, I graduated law school and started trying cases. I drove to the courthouse, was sworn in by a State District Judge, and started accepting court appointed criminal defense cases. My first jury trial was in the spring of the next year–a felony case. My next jury trial was a condemnation case. Eventually, my practice settled in general business work. For most of my career, I represented creditors in commercial collections and a variety of small business clients. I enjoyed the problem solving that I did for my business clients and found the practice of law challenging and fulfilling.
That all started to shift about twenty years ago. I met a Mennonite missionary who was working with Central Americans here in Dallas. In the mid-eighties, thousands of Salvadorans and Guatemalans were fleeing civil wars in their home countries. Intrigued, I agreed to help obtain guardianships for unaccompanied minors, so they could enroll in school in the U.S. Later, I took a training in asylum law. My first asylum case was a Guatemalan woman whose husband, a union leader, was assassinated by a death squad as he took their kids to school. I helped her obtain asylum. After that, I was hooked.
My policy was that once I finished an asylum case, I’d ask for another one. Since then, I have provided pro bono legal representation for political and religious asylum applicants from twenty different countries: Guatemala, EI Salvador, Burma, China, Russia, Bangladesh, Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo), Somalia, Togo, Cameroon, Nigeria, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Liberia, Nepal, Zimbabwe, and Rwanda.
Why did I continue to do this work? A client from Zaire provided all of the incentive I needed. My client had been a pro-democracy activist during the tyrannical reign of Sese Mobutu. This resulted in his arrest. He managed to escape and make his way to America. He was lucky to be alive. His wife and children were in hiding in Brazzaville. I assisted this young man to obtain political asylum here. Months later, he showed up unannounced at my office with his wife and children. They were no longer in hiding. Instead, they were making a new life in the United States. He introduced me to them and said, “I wanted to thank you in person.” After he thanked me. I told him rather casually that it was my pleasure. He looked at me, paused, and said, “No, I know what you did for me, you gave me my life.” Then it hit me. It was I who was getting the most out of this relationship. Most people never get a chance to hear something like that. So, I knew that this was the most enriching work I could possibly do. I learned that it was a privilege to represent such people.
Since 1999, I’ve been taking cases from Human Rights Initiative of North Texas, Inc. HRI was founded in 1999 by a lawyer Betsy Healy, and a social worker, Serena Connely. Their mutual goal was to found an agency that was motivated by compassion, and where the work was performed in an efficient and competent fashion. I mentored Betsy on her first asylum case, when she was a lawyer in a large Dallas commercial law firm. Their model was to use pro bono lawyers to do the work. HRI has built strategic alliances with some of the best law firms in America. Those lawyers provide over two million dollars in legal services to our clients every year. HRI has built a great reputation by having a rigorous process of screening and intake.
Over the years, I not only took pro bono cases, but I became an advocate for refugees. I wrote a number of editorials for newspapers. I wrote articles about Burma and Zimbabwe. I also wrote commentaries about human rights issues for our local public radio station. Any opportunity I had to speak about the issues of asylees, I took. I realized that our clients’ stories were inspiring to others. I became increasingly aware that this was the work I found the most satisfying in life. In time, I began to think of it as a calling. In part, I was motivated by the Biblical mandate to be a voice for oppressed people.
One of the best parts of this work is seeing our country through the eyes of people who risked much to get here. I once had a client from Russia, whose family sold their home to pay for their son’s escape. A few years back, a client escaped from a torture chamber and stowed away on a cargo ship. He swam ashore at the port of Houston. The main lesson I draw from such stories is that I no longer take my rights for granted.
I drive past an Eritrean Church, where my client worships. She spent days in an overseas shipping container just for reading a Bible. I drive past a church where my Egyptian Coptic Clients now worship, after losing everything to extremists in their native Egypt. I once stood in my office on Election Day, as my Zimbabwean client expressed amazement at the peaceful nature of our elections. I realize just how fortunate I am, and I have our clients to thank.
Last year, the position of Executive Director became open at HRI. I talked it over with my wife and we decided I should apply. It was not really a difficult choice, because I now wanted to devote all my energy to the cause of helping people seek refuge here in America.
So how do I feel about it now? My work place is filled with Ethiopian pro-democracy advocates, Iranian Christians, and Egyptian Coptics. I work with young women escaping abusive arranged marriages and young teens who were survivors of crime. It is the most fulfilling thing I have ever done. I work with a team of young people who are full of skill and compassion. I feel younger and more energized than I have in years. In sum, I can’t imagine work that is more fulfilling or more important. I feel like I’m home.
By now, the story of Shakil Afridi is well known. The Pakistani doctor ran a vaccination program in Pakistan that served as cover for his real mission–to help the CIA track down Osama Bin Laden. According to Leon Panetta, the former head of the CIA (and current Secretary of Defense), Dr. Afridi’s contribution was crucial to finding Bin Laden and terminating him with extreme prejudice.
The CIA Vaccine Program: We have ways of making you talk!
As a reward for helping rid the world of its number one terrorist, the government of Pakistan arrested Dr. Afridi and charged him with high treason, a crime punishable by death. Pakistan has also arrested Dr. Afridi’s wife for good measure.
I suppose from Pakistan’s point of view, Dr. Afridi should have informed the Pakistani government, not the U.S. government, about Mr. Bin Laden. But I also suppose that–had he done so–Mr. Bin Laden would still be alive and well today.
So far, Pakistan has refused U.S. demands to release the good doctor, and now Congress is getting into the act. A bill sponsored by Dana Rohrabacher, the Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight, calls for granting citizenship to Dr. Afridi. Congressman Rohrabacher states:
My bill would grant [Dr. Afridi] US citizenship and send a direct and powerful message to those in the Pakistani government and military who protected the mastermind of 9/11 for all those years and who are now seeking retribution on those who helped to execute bin Laden…. This bill shows the world that America does not abandon its friends.
There are a few too many assumptions in the Congressman’s condemnation of Pakistan for my taste, but I agree with the general sentiment. It is outrageous that our supposed ally would treat Dr. Afridi (and his wife) in this manner. While Pakistan’s pride might have been hurt by our Abbottabad Operation, the fact is, Osama Bin Laden was living right under their noses and they did nothing about it. Rather than lash out at the man who helped find Osama Bin Laden, they would do better to look inward and examine the shocking intelligence failure that allowed Mr. Bin Laden to live for years practically next door to Pakistan’s top military academy.
Whether the efforts of the State Department and Congress bear fruit, we shall see. But certainly we should not abandoned the man who helped us eliminate Mr. Bin Laden.
As a side note, there are many other foreign nationals who have helped us in our fight against terrorism, often at great personal risk. So far, we have not done right by most of them (I’ve written about this here). We should not abandoned these people either.
Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
But if you are like me, you probably don’t know much about the woman who wrote these lines in 1883. A new exhibit at the New York Museum of Jewish Heritage explores the life and times of Emma Lazarus.
The words of Emma Lazarus continue to inspire.
The exhibit, Emma Lazarus: Poet of Exiles, marks the 125th anniversary of the dedication of the Statue of Liberty, and is the first major museum exhibition about Ms. Lazarus. The exhibit includes rare artifacts that explore her unique story and message. Emma Lazarus was a poet, playwrite, and novelist. She also translated many works from Jewish poets into English. She was a decendant of Portugese Sephardic Jews, who settled in the U.S. prior to the Revolutionary War. Her family includes several prominent Americans, including Benjamin Cardozo, an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ms. Lazarus was also an activist. She taught Russian Jewish immigrants in New York and helped them become self supporting. She also traveled twice to Europe. When she returned from her second trip, she was very ill (probably with cancer), and she died two months later, in November 1887. She was 38 years old.
The exhibit opened last month and runs until the summer of 2012. To learn more, check out the museum’s website, here. Also, if you would like to read more about Emma Lazarus, check this post in the Jewish Women’s Archive.
There is a story told about a Jewish Holocaust survivor who was a prisoner at the Auschwitz death camp. Every day, this man thanks G-d; each day more loudly and exuberantly than the day before. Finally, the man’s fellow prisoners become annoyed with him: “How can you thank G-d,” they asked, “when we are in this place? When the Nazis are daily murdering us and torturing us?” The man replies: “I am thanking G-d because He did not make me like the Nazis.”
To me, this story represents a quintessential aspect of being Jewish. Even in the face of the worst evil known to man, the Jew remains true to his values, to his morality, and to his faith.
Today we live in difficult, dangerous times. The threat of terrorism looms ever present. The most visible terrorists are Muslim extremists: Al Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Shabaab. They threaten America and the West. They threaten Israel.
How, then, should American Jews–and specifically American Jewish lawyers–respond to Muslim immigrants and refugees coming to the United States? This is an issue I face every day, as I represent many Muslims who are seeking political asylum from countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Iran.
Some Jewish lawyers have taken to attacking Islam and Muslims in the United States. The most well-known example is probably David Yerushalmi, who is behind many state laws designed to protect our country from what he calls the infiltration of Sharia law. Other Jews who are not lawyers (yes, I suppose this is to their credit) are also prominent in the anti-Islam movement in the United States. Probably most well-known among them is Pam Geller, the blogger behind the “World Trade Center Mega Mosque” controversy.
I must admit that such people inspire in me strongly negative emotions. But in the spirit of the season (and my rabbi’s Yom Kippur sermon), I will try to say my piece without criticizing them. As the rabbi put it, I will try to tell my truth with love.
First, I believe my fellow Jews’ opposition to Islam and Muslims is not consistent with Jewish values. Our people have been on the receiving end of persecution for millennium. We should not subject others to persecution, or even the implied threat of persecution, based on stereotypes. Particularly since the Muslims who have come to the U.S. are often people who faced persecution or discrimination in their homelands (for this reason, they left). As Rabbi Hillel famously said, “What is hateful to you, do not do to others.”
Second, I think such behavior is bad for the Jews and divisive for our community. Like it or not, most Jews are liberals. This stems from our religious teachings as well as our communal experience as a persecuted minority (for example, the Torah repeatedly reminds us to have one law for the alien and the native born, and not to mistreat the stranger, for we were strangers in Egypt). We tend to sympathize with other minorities. Hence, our disproportional representation in social justice movements. The strident attacks on Muslims (a small minority in the U.S.) and the implication that Jews who disagree with such attacks are “self hating,” naive or traitorous is alienating to many Jews, and will ultimately weaken our community.
Finally, the attack on Islam and Muslims is a bad strategy. Many Muslims look to the West and the United States as models for development. The Arab Spring shows that many Muslims–perhaps a large majority–dream of democratic reforms, freedom, and free economies. Closer to home, I represent many Muslims–journalists, human rights workers, advocates for women’s rights, people who worked with the U.S. military–who have risked their lives to help us in our fight against Islamic extremism. By attacking all Muslims, we potentially alienate such people and lose valuable allies in our war on terror.
Jews are an argumentative, stubborn people. There’s an old joke about a Jewish man who is stranded alone on a desert island. When he is finally rescued after many years, his rescuers notice that he built two synagogues on the island. When they ask him why, he points to one synagogue: “This is the synagogue where I worship.” “And the other one?,” they ask. “That one,” says the man,” I wouldn’t set foot in.” In the new year, I hope we can be less divisive and more respectful of each other’s views. I hope we can look for the good in others, and give people the benefit of the doubt, even people who disagree with us, or who are different from us. L’Shana Tova.
Late last month, Bolivia’s Supreme Court of Justice convicted seven former military and government officials of genocide, reports Indian Country Today Media Network. The military officials received 10-15 years imprisonment and the civilians three years in prison. However, the primary suspects in the case, former president Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada and former defense minister Carlos Sánchez Berzain, remain in the United States. As far as I can tell, Mr. Sanchez de Lozada is either a citizen or a permanent resident of the United States. Mr. Sanchez Berzain was granted asylum in the U.S. in 2008 (sparking protests in Bolivia).
Carlos Sanchez Berzain: Accused mass murderer and...
The convictions and accusations stem from a 2003 incident known as the Bolivian Gas War, where protesters blocked a natural gas shipment from Bolivia to Chile. The then-president of Bolivia used the military to open the road. As a result of this incident, as many as 67 people died (all of them members of Bolivia’s indigenous Aymara community) and 400 were injured. The “war” was part of a larger economic and social conflict in Bolivia, and as a result President Sanchez de Lozada resigned from office. The current president, Evo Morales, was a leader of the protesters.
Since Messrs. Sanchez de Lozada and Sanchez Berzain have been in the U.S., the Bolivian government has filed a formal extradition request, which so far has not been acted upon. Also, victims of the alleged genocide have filed a lawsuit under the Alien Torts Statute against the two Bolivian leaders seeking to hold them accountable for the deaths in 2003. The lawsuit involves some heavy hitters on both sides. For the plaintiffs: Ira Kurzban, Harvard University’s Human Rights Clinic, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the law firm Akin Gump. Representing the defendants are my former idol Alan Dershowitz (who seems to have repositioned himself from a defender of civil liberties to a defender of all things right-wing), and the law firms Williams and Connelly, LLP and Greenberg Traurig. In November 2009, the District Court dismissed some counts of the complaint and allowed others to go forward. The defendants appealed, and the case is currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Ned Flanders look-alike.
As there is (probably) enough evidence for the civil case to move ahead, I wonder whether the Department of Homeland Security is investigating the asylee defendant, Mr. Sanchez Berzain. Under the law of asylum, one who engaged in genocide or persecution of others is ineligible for asylum. Clearly, there is some evidence that Mr. Sanchez Berzain was involved in persecuting people. Aside from the District Court ruling, a leader of the indigenous peoples of Bolivia called Mr. Sancehz Berzain the “specific intellectual author” of the 2003 massacre.
Given the calls to deport the housekeeper in the DSK case (who seemingly lied about her asylum claim), I wonder whether there will be a similar outcry here, where the asylee is accused of much worse than lying. My guess is–since our country has a rocky relationship (at best) with President Morales–it’s likely DHS will look the other way when it comes to Mr. Sanchez Berzain. And that’s too bad–asylum law is supposed to be based on international principles; not politics.
