I welcome students and faculty to provide commentary, news and/or other information on a particular immigration subject. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to other 
blogs, web pages, and other media related to this topic and I welcome immigration-related information. While this blog is primarily textual, I encourage focus on immigration-related photgraphs (photoblogs), videos (vlog), or audio (podcasting) as well.
We are a nation of immigrants and it is important to express constructive viewpoints on this great issue.
blogs, web pages, and other media related to this topic and I welcome immigration-related information. While this blog is primarily textual, I encourage focus on immigration-related photgraphs (photoblogs), videos (vlog), or audio (podcasting) as well.We are a nation of immigrants and it is important to express constructive viewpoints on this great issue.
For the immigration policy class, please first register and review comments made my me and your classmates.
--Christopher Helt, Esq. Lecturer, Loyola University of Chicago.
20 comments:
See, I am an alien from Pakistan, arrived in the USA on a visitors visa in June 2001 and was granted six month period to stay over here, however, in the wake of 9/11 attacks on American soil and unfortunate involvement of South Asian muslims (Taliban/Arabs), and counter attacks by the US forces in a territory surrounding my country Pakistan, I did not return even after expiry of my visitors visa, hence violate the rules.
Though, this was a forced decision based on the new realities on ground in my region, suddenly the INS (now, Homeland Security)advised certain nationalities to register themselves to go in person and register with the INS. offices; I did so.
There I was put in detention and my friends with the help of a legal attorney put me out on a bond. After couple of hearings represented by the same legal attorney. I filed my asylum application for which the Hon'able Judge based on the INS attorney's comments, ruled that I was not good for filing asylum application since it should have been done within a year from the date of entering the USA. Even on my pointing about the unawareness of the rules and with the current developments in my home country as based on my removal proceedings in the wake of my volunteer appearance in person to comply with the current advisory by the then INS, I'm filing the asylum request now. The Hon'ble Judge told us to strike the word asylum and file it again under Torture Act. I did it and during the master hearing that was not considered based on the same grounds that I'm late in filing such a relief, therefore, I had no option other than to accept the voluntary departure which was also endorsed by my the then attorney. I accepted it with a note on the record that since I was told by all in attendance i.e. the Judge, INS attorney and my legal attorney that I have no option other than to accept the voluntary departure to avoid any detention and/or other penalties, I accepted the ruling of the Hon'ble Judge.
Considering these orders are final and not challengeable started packing and seek asylum in neighboring Canada. One day I saw a silver line in the sky when a person who came to know my situation and directed me to Mr. Christopher Helt, Esq. saying that he successfully represented him in his removal proceedings and finally he got thru and is a green card holder. I stopped by in his office and took an appointment from his secretary and still I'm quite satisfied with that decision and am lucky enough that Mr. Helt is fighting my case laboriously and successfully for the last two years finally at the 7th Circuit.
Here, I like to emphasize a very imporatand point/observation that one can seek legal assistance from any legal practitioner but every legal practitioner cannot fight the case as effectively as it can be handled by an able, with strong educational background as well as highly experienced and capable legal expert and that's what I witnessed in my case. One legal practitioner gave up and suggested me to accept the Hon'ble Court's decision and pack and leave and literally speaking I was about to do so. However, since I met this God Father H.E. Christopher Helt, Esq. and the way he presented me the options and milestones how we can proceed and what relief options we have available to us as follows :
1. File motion with BIA to reopen
2. File motion with Immig Court
3. File extension of VAD
BIA currently denied and upheld the decision passed earlier by the Hon'ble Cour, and again decleared for me to voluntarily depart the USA within certain period of time.
Now, Mr. Helt Esq., opined the following options to challenge it:
1. File motion with BIA to reverse
2. File appeal with 7th Circuit
3. File extention of VAD
BIA denied once again to reopen or reconsider the earlier decision.
7th Circuit accepted to consider the appeal to reopen and reconsider the decisions by the Immigration Court as well as BIA.
Also, 7th Circuit issued an interim stay order on VAD and gave 7day period to Homeland Security Dept. for comments which was upopposed by the Homeland Dept. Hence, the 7th Circuit issued a final order to issue a stay on VAD for a period till the filed appeal is considered and decided.
Currently, Mr. Helt has furnished a detailed brief on my appeal and filed with the 7th Circuit as required by the procedure followed by another brief soon. Homeland Secuirity Dept. will file their brief in a months time which will be followed by a response the Mr. Helt and then the Hon'ble 7th Circuit Court will make a decision for oral arguments as sought by Mr. Helt in the brief.
Last but not the least I like to place my high gratitude and applaud for Mr. Christopher Helt Esq., for such a strong basis in my case to convince the 7th Circuit to reverse the earlier decisions and refer my case back to the Immigration Court to allow me to file an Asylum Application for their evaluation of its grounds and justifications. Which, the way it has been worded very strongly and logically that duration of limitation on filing asylum can be waived based on changed circumstances and also each case should be considered equally and in a same manner i.e. irrespective of nationality, community, ethnic background and alien status.
I'm proud that my case is being represented by a highly matured, professionally strong, extremely qualified and learned legal expert and I see no reason it won't get thru.
Kate Dalton
Soc 370
1/18/2007
Critique: Nadya Labi, Time Magazine, “Does This Boy Deserve Asylum?” and
CBS News, “U.S. Grants Autistic Child Asylum”
Mental illness among citizens has historically challenged the boundaries of legal precedence in the U.S. legal system. It gets even stickier when dealing with illegal aliens. “Does This Boy Deserve Asylum” and the pseudo-sequel “U.S. Grants Autistic Child Asylum” (2000 and 2001, respectively) provide an introduction to a relatively new terrain for deportation defense. Though disability rights have gained some recognition in other areas of law, stories of migrants like Umair Choudhry, a native of Pakistan who suffers with autism, have been slow to make the immigration headlines.
Choudhry’s mother sought asylum for her son on the grounds that he faced persecution in Pakistan, where autism is not accepted. The Labi article also presents the case of Ricardo de Santiago-Carrillo, a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic who feared mistreatment in the mental institutions of his native Mexico. Choudhry and Santiago-Carillo’s defenses center on the last criteria specified in the INS definition of a refugee: a person facing “…persecution based on race, religion, nationality, [or] membership; in a particular social group or political opinion” (CBS News 2001, 1). The application of social group to persons with disabilities (mental or physical) is a new development.
Not surprisingly, advocates for restrictive immigration legislation object.
Employing a familiar slippery slope argument, Dan Stein of the Federation for American Immigration Reform warns that “our asylum laws cannot account for all the vagaries of human vexation and misfortune” (Labi 2000, 2).
However, human rights activists disagree. And in comparing the favorable ruling in Choudhry’s (a non-verbal ten year old ) case to the pending appeal on de Santiago-Carrillo’s (a 34-year-old man with a criminal record involving drug abuse and domestic violence) case, it seems that migrant families with small children may be best equipped to file for asylum on the basis of the human right to avoid persecution.
References
CBS News. “U.S. Grants Autistic Child Asylum.” 21 February 2001.
Labi, Nadya. Time Magazine. “Does This Boy Deserve Asylum? 16 October 2000.
The article I chose to read was “Does This Boy Deserve Asylum?” by Dan Cray from TIME magazine. The article describes two men, both of which suffer from mental illnesses and wish to be granted asylum to remain in the United States. One is a young boy suffering from autism who poses a threat to himself if not observed at all times, and the other subject is a man who poses a threat to others due to his schizophrenia. The subject of the article is controversial because it bends both ways; should the mentally ill be granted asylum? This is not a simple question to answer, because so many other questions arise from this topic. How mentally ill does one have to be in order to be granted asylum? Does age and gender influence this?
In the two cases discussed in the article, I find that I am sympathetic to both and would rule to be in favor of granting both parties asylum. But the problem then arises of where to draw the line. The United States cannot grant every mentally ill person asylum, especially if they are committing crimes and endangering the lives of others, such as Ricardo de Santiago-Carillo, who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. Dealing with mental illnesses is a tremendous battle in the first place, and having to measure one mental illness against another seems not only wrong but also unlawful. I believe that someone who does not suffer from the illness of the person who is being prosecuted does not have the depth of knowledge or information needed to deal with that case.
In both cases in the article I believe that the individuals should be granted asylum under the assumption that in their home country they would have to face persecution and discrimination. Both parties should also submit themselves to proper treatment and the medication needed to help them live a better life.
Georgiann Bruton
SOCL 370 – Immigration
“Why Illegal Immigration Is One of the Hot Topics of 2006”
To say that illegal immigration is a hot topic is an understatement. People do have very firm views one way or another. I must admit that I am someone whose view is middle of the road.
The statistics provided in the article in terms of the increased numbers of illegal immigrants, the toll on our government services and health care system and employment opportunities lost to illegal’s are valid arguments to impose stricter laws (or enforcement of current laws.). But what gets lost is the human element.
Most illegal immigrants make what could be a life-threatening journey to the United States. What drives a person to row a make-shift boat from Cuba or get transported in a truck canister from Mexico? The chance for a better life. I am sure a fair amount of illegal immigrants come to the United States to send money home and/or make money and return to their homeland to live quite comfortably.
My personal experience with illegal immigration has me a little more on the side of stricter laws. I know of a person who overstayed his welcome but did not return to Mexico. He was employed and even had a couple of auto accidents but no one caught his illegal status or it was easier to overlook.
The article hits the nail on the head in that politicians always find the hot button topics, dwell on them long enough to get elected and in the end usually do not create much change. We need to have longer memories and challenge the politicians to do what they promise.
Well Said!
Thank you for the kind words. With immigration, anything is possible, but we will try out best!
CH
The comment and critique by Kate Dalton truly expresses the concerns by many with this controversial case. For those who are not aware, the case was featured on the cover of the Chicago Tribune two issues and not only Time but NPR radio and 60 Minutes interviewed me concerning this case. While most are sympathic to a child's mental illness should we, as Americans, open the flood gates and allow every person like Umair to come to the US and receive medical treatment. The case was extremely difficult to win and I will bring in the legal briefs if anyone cares to review them. Think about this case when you read about our "obligation" to provide safe haven to others around the world.
The comment and critique by Georgiann really hits home on the great american immigration debate. When you read her comments, keep in mind Guarding the Golden Door, and Daniels' comments about the "Dualistic" attitude that we have towards immigration and immigrants. The Dualistic attitude is not only aptly brought to light by Georgiann's contempoary comments, but this is certainly TEST material. If you haven't already figured out yet, I will leave clues for you on the blog site acknowleging an exact mid-term or final exam question, if you READ ALL THE BLOG COMMENTS BY YOUR CLASSMATES and the blog comment "hits" or touches on test material. In other words, know the definition of the "dualistic attitude" toward immigration. It will be on your mid-term exam.
CH
Kate's comments are well-develeped? As we discussed last week, is it far to place retrictions on anyone trying to come to America, as least in theory? What about the words on the Statue of Liberty, Give me your poor, your tired, your weak....? Do those words still apply today? Do we want the poor, the tired and the weak coming to America? What did those words mean, then and now?
Summary and Comments on: “Does this Boy Deserve Asylum?” in Time by Nadya Labi
Nadya Labi begins her article by describing the stories of two different people seeking asylum in the United States on the basis of their mental disabilities. The first is a 10-year old boy from Pakistan with severe autism and the second is a 34-year old man from Mexico afflicted with paranoid schizophrenia. Both are asking the Immigration and Naturalization Service to grant them permission to stay in the United States because mental disabilities are deeply misunderstood in their native countries and, as a result, they will likely face persecution—perhaps even brutality—if they return home. Labi reports it is likely the autistic boy will be placed in a “mad house” and kept in cage if he returns to Pakistan, that patient abuse is common in Mexican mental institutions and, in China, individuals with paranoid schizophrenia are often subject to forced sterilization. According the article, refugees are eligible for asylum if they face “persecution or a well-founded fear of prosecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Disability advocates are claiming people with disabilities qualify for asylum because they are a distinct social group that often faces discrimination and persecution abroad. The case being made by the Mexican man with paranoid schizophrenia will be the first argument of its kind to go before the board of immigration appeals.
Not everyone supports this new interpretation of the INS asylum standards, however. Critics argue that the mentally ill are not members of a particular social group and that granting the mentally disabled asylum could lead to abuse because disabled individuals could come to the U.S. to seek advanced medical treatment “under the guise of escaping persecution.” They are appealing cases for asylum made by the mentally ill on the basis that asylum laws were never intended for the disabled.
Yet, these two arguments made by critics, that people with disabilities do not constitute a social group and that the new interpretation could lead to abuse, are faulty. Around the world, even in the most developed countries, people with disabilities face segregation and stigmatization, are often among the poorest of a country’s residents, and frequently lack physical access to the larger social environment. They are often defined primarily by their disability, losing their identity as valuable contributors to the common good, as sexual beings, and even simply as adults. As a result, they have unique experiences as a group and face common struggles and oppressions. The Time article states that women and homosexuals have been granted asylum based on their membership in an oppressed social group, and I am hard pressed to find a distinction which would include women and gay men, but not those with disabilities. In fact, the disabled seem to have an even stronger case, given that they are, as a group, perhaps among the most vulnerable and are the least equipped to adequately defend themselves.
The critics’ second argument, that this new interpretation of asylum standards could lead to abuse, is also problematic. If a concern over potential abuses was enough to prevent a policy or program from being enacted, America would not have welfare policies, food stamps, injured workers’ compensation benefits, social security disability benefits, handicapped parking hang tags, or any other public program that only impacts a selective group. The risk (and even the reality) of abuse, in and of itself, has not prevented policies in the past and there is no precedent that the risk of abuse outweighs the benefits that those programs provide. The arguments made by the critics in the article seem more concerned about thwarting any policy that could increase the number of immigrants in the country rather than the merits of disabled people’s arguments for asylum. Given that only 25,257 people were granted asylum in 2005 (compared to the over 1.1 million people granted lawful permanent residence that same year), those wishing to reduce U.S. immigration should perhaps focus less on vulnerable populations seeking asylum and more on the greater social and economic factors around the world contributing to the vast majority of immigration in this country.
Sources:
Labi, Nadya. 2000. “Does This Boy Deserve Asylum?” Time October 16. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998213-1,00.html Assessed online 1/16/07.
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/FS13_immigration_US_2006.pdf, a report by the Migration Policy Institute, October 2006.
I have mixed feelings about the article "Does This Boy Deserve Asylum?" While I feel extremely sympathetic towards his plight, and the plight of other disabled people around the world, I also feel that it could be a disservice to allow them assylum based on persecution for their disability. If we were to open our gates to everyone who is persecuted for their disabilities in other countries then there might not be anyone left to demand changes in those other countries. While it's horrible that anyone should have to suffer, it's sometimes suffering that produces change in the world. The United States obviously can't be everyone's escape from horrible conditions, but maybe there are other things we can do to partner with people who want to make positive changes in their own countries. Maybe Umair's mother should be offered help and directed to organizations that can help her learn how to take steps towards creating awareness of disabilities in her own country. We've got a lot of money in the United States and have countless numbers of non-profit organizations dedicated to just about any kind of disability or disease known to man, so I'm sure that if she was given direction to the right place she could get help. My point is that I don't think it's a black and white, all or nothing issue. I believe the better question to ask is "What are the many ways that we could help people who knock on our door asking to come in?" Maybe granting assylum could be the answer; but maybe that's not always the best solution and something else needs to be done. In this case I think doing something else would be better for everyone.
Cezara Crisan
SOC 370
Article Review
Why Illegal Immigration is One of the Hot Topics of 2006- by Kris Axtman of The Christian Science Monitor
1/17/07
The unprecedented growth in the number of undocumented workers (often referred to as “illegal immigrants”) and the local governments’ expenditures associated with this growth are the two main concerns that are raised when one considers why illegal immigration is one of the hot topics of 2006, in the view of Kris Axtman, writer for The Christian Science Monitor. Statistical data in support of these arguments presents the costs associated with this group of immigrants in the educational and health department of the city of Huston, a major host city of immigrants. There are two sides of the debate. On one hand there are the costs associated with providing services to these immigrants, and on the other hand there is the fact that these newcomers are spending money in the community, pay local taxes, and often eventually establish new businesses, so therefore, if the country wants the benefits of having these workers, it should accept the cost associated with them.
However, the debate should be much more complex than this. First, the “real question” is not if the country needs these workers, but how (in which context) and eventually why these workers are taking the risk of illegal immigration. If the author of the article would have taken into account the perspective of the undocumented immigrant, the findings would have shown the structural forces that promote this immigration. These include the globalization of the economy which was designed to profit the multinational corporation rather than helping the poorer nations and the conditions imposed by the International Monetary Found to indebted countries, such as reduction in food price subsidies, keeping down wages, cutting back public works, reducing the number of government employees, and severely reducing education and health care budgets. These exacerbate the living conditions of people in these countries. Immigration, illegal or not become a means of survival.
Any means of survival can take extreme forms. Illegal trafficking in people for the sex industry and cross- border transporting of documented and undocumented workers are common trends as they benefit first the government of the migrant country by the infusion of hard currency, and furthermore, the illegal traffickers who gain huge profits, all these by exploiting (sometimes) the only source of survival of a family in the home country.
One of the effects of globalization in US is a creation of the so-called “household without a wife” (family of highly paid professionals), which in turn produces a new demand for domestic labor. The new and invisible working class, which emerges, is composed mostly of illegal underpaid immigrant women, sending remittances to their families in the home country.
In recent years there has been increased recognition of theses problems, and there is a growing body of scholarship, but the problem is pervasive and growing.
Special registration is part of a program the office of Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) began after the September 11th attacks. The complete program will monitor or track all foreign visitors to the country. Initially after September 11th, men from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and Syria, and individuals who raised national security concerns were subject to more extensive registration processes to enter the United States and then required to return to an INS office within 30 to 40 days after their initial arrival and then every 12 month after. Next, began special registration of male visitors over the age of 16 who are nationals or citizens of a selected 25 countries. Foreign male visitors from the listed countries are required to be interviewed, photographed, and fingerprinted. These countries have predominate populations of Muslims or Arabs with the exception of North Korea and Eritrea.
The INS has registered 82,000 people under special registration laws and 13,000 have been issued notices to appear in immigration court. Many of the men who voluntarily went to register are being detained and in some cases deported for immigration violations. Many local businesses, primarily Pakistani, feel that a fear of deportation is causing a fleeing of Pakistani immigrants from the Chicago area to other countries. Businesses have been closing or losing business because people fear being detained and deported. If deported by the INS, individuals may not be able to enter the United States for as long as 20 years. This is the case of Khalid, whose wife and child are both citizens of the U.S. while he is not. He went to the office to register, was detained for illegally entering the country, was deported, and cannot return for 20 years. Many of the immigrants who are being charged with violations are waiting on paperwork. Khalid’s wife had applied for a visa for him in 1996 and which was still pending when he went to register. Other examples include individuals waiting for green cards.
Special registration can be viewed as only a way to enforce immigration laws. September 11th was a wake-up call for the INS to return to some of its previous policies; 15 of the 19 hijackers were in the United States on expired visas. Only 25 years before this article was written (think 1978 time frame) all non-citizens were required to register annually with the INS and up until the early 1990s all Iraqi and Kuwaiti nationals were required to register. In addition many European countries, Japan, and Australia have registration policies requiring foreigners to register.
But, criticisms of special registration are that terrorists won’t turn themselves in and that it uses racial profiling by only requiring male from Arab and/or Muslim countries to register. If the INS were to expand its policy to all foreign visitors, there wouldn’t be an issue of racial profiling. But, Carl Rusnock, a spokesman for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has stated that there are no plans to expand the number of countries whose nationals are affected by the special registration process.
I believe that the INS should be able to enforce laws pertaining to immigration and requiring foreign visitors to register is a means to enforce the laws of the United States. But, I believe it is wrong to require only nationals or citizens from certain countries to register while other visitors do not. In addition, I believe that more strict enforcement of immigration laws will create more discussion on which laws are good and which laws are bad or outdated, leading hopefully to changes in laws and policies.
If anyone is interested, I thought this gave a good summary of what Bush had to say re: immigration during his State of the Union speech tonight.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/16529044.htm
Georgiann Bruton
“Will Illegal Immigration Offset A Wage Hike? By Tom Curry
The question this article attempts to answer is will raising the minimum wage for “legal” workers still not produce positive benefits due to the “illegal” worker willing to work for less.
The federal minimum wage was to be raised by $2.10 an hour. The Congressional Budget Office believes that immigrants do hold down wages. According to the Congressional Budget Office, “the large influx of foreign-born workers with less than a high school education during the past few decades probably put downward wage pressure on workers (both native and foreign born) who also lacked a high school diploma.”
What I found interesting about the rest of the article is how this question is not and possibly cannot be answered. Two different economists were interviewed. An economist from Harvard believes illegal workers do negatively affect the wages of legal workers. However, another economist believes their impact has been minimal over the past 25 years.
The remaining part of the article speaks to the political angle with the Democratic side believing this is a good and necessary thing for all. Even illegal works should be paid this wage. They also cannot determine if this will help or hurt lower income workers. The lone Republican comment was a realization that their inaction lead to many Republicans losing elections last November.
I was drawn to this article, first by our classroom discussion on wages, and then by reading the first two chapters of “Guarding the Golden Door.” Professor Helt’s comparison of cab drivers of his father’s generation to the ones of today, gives light to a field that allowed reduced standards and benefits.
The readings also enforced the old saying, “the more things change, the more they stay the same.” In the early days of immigration, it was the Chinese who suffered from prejudice and mistreatment. From fear, states tried to restrict the entry into the United States or make it very difficult to stay. The Chinese were required at one point to register. Fortunately for them the government did not have the millions of dollars needed to actually deport the ones that refused to register. Today, people from certain countries are required to register but now the government has the means to deport them.
Their concerns were also of the Chinese taking away jobs from the natives just as we are concerned about Mexican workers. According to “Guarding the Golden Door,” in the early days of immigration laws, they did not even include workers from Mexico and encouraged them to walk over. Their agricultural business relied heavily on their work. Do the Mexican farm workers really take jobs away or depress the wages in the agricultural field when they are doing these jobs for decades?
Why Illegal Immigration is one of the Hot Topics of 2006
Kris Axtman is writing from Houston, where the immigrant population continues to soar. Citing the national and local population of immigrants, the impact on education, health care, and the services that American citizens must pay for through taxes, the reader senses frustration from theses citizens; Dissatisfaction towards the past and present attempts to stem immigration into their country.
Once we examine the numbers and their impact, many findings arise. If nine million more illegal immigrants are now in the U.S compared to the mid eighties, there should be something done so this illegal migration can be safer (since there are many deaths crossing the border on all sides-something many Amercians overlook), and for the American and immigrant population to live with less fear, it must become more law abiding. Fences, increased criminalization, and temporary workers will only make it harder for immigrants, and it will send a message that America will get rid of immigrant labor as soon as she's finished using and exploiting it.
According to the article, the percentage of students in ESL was raised by 4.7% since 1994 and teachers by 1.7%, this tells us that Houstonians (native or foreign born) are becoming more bilingual through immigration, the educational system is not taking advantage of that; it definitely seems as if there is a ESL teacher shortage in a city with 400,000 undocumented immigrants and a very high Latino population. Americans have an advantage to raise children that can speak more than one language, which seems like a privilege, but it is castigated as a liability. Even though the American public school system is behind most industrialized countries in most subjects, where many of these European students can speak more than one language in a time where the global market is becoming smaller and easier to encounter.
The services that illegal immigrants use and the cost it entails can seem preposterous to the average American, especially in a country where 15% of its population doesn’t have health insurance. If a 96% increase in health spending for undocumented immigrants in three years seems daunting, something should be done about it, but taking measures to push away people who are fleeing political, cultural, religious, and economic persecution seems to be reducing a health problem for Americans and increasing the same problem over the borders. Immigration is not going to stop by reactionary political measures and punitive laws, the immigrants will still find a way towards a better life; never underestimate a person’s ability to survive.
Discussion topic: Special Registration for Muslims
I find really intriguing the situation that many Muslims had to go through after they were required to register with the Department of Homeland Security. Many Muslims had a huge dilemma; they needed to make a decision that would have a huge impact in their lives. It was very surprising to found out that out of 83 000 Muslims that registered with the department, 2800 were deported and 13 000 are still waiting for some type of status.
This is a very complex situation, if people didn’t register after 9/11, they were never going to be able to apply for a Green card, however, if they register, they were going to be subject to questioning by the courts and in some cases, be deported. I also found intriguing the comment of one of the people who were interviewed in the documentary. Although she mentioned that she would never forget her native country, she said that she felt more comfortable in this country and, therefore, she felt that “she was from
Chicago”. This is an intriguing point, if a country provides you with security, rights and freedoms, you feel that you are part of this country even though you were not born here. This is probably one of the main reasons why people move to Western industrialized nations that allow them to live a better life.
The movie Avalon was interesting to me becuase I was able to relater to the story. My father is always telling us to never forget where we came from and how difficult it's been achieve what we have.
If anyone is interested, UIC is hosting a conference on immigration later this week. Check it out:
http://www.uic.edu/las/latamst/
(thanks to Liz Alexander)
Post a Comment