So, here we have a man who is in the Army National Guard. Although he was not born in the U.S., he serves the country he now lives in with pride-- great story about giving back to a country who's given you so much (John F. Kennedy would've been proud). However, there’s this little problem having to do with his wife-- she’s illegal. Sadly, this is the same story for many immigrants here in the good ol’ US of A, which claims to be the “land of the free and home of the brave,” as the national anthem states. One can argue that yes, it is land of the free for those who are here ‘legally,’ but does that mean that it can never be home to someone who might not have that opportunity?
What about someone who’s pleading asylum status? That is the case for Alexander Gomez’s wife. Both of them are from Columbia, which has always been marked with civil conflicts and to this day has fingers pointing towards it for drug ‘factories’ and exportation. Drug lords and dangerous zones are definitely reasons for one to plead asylum or refugee status. The only thing that gets me is the location that Gomez’s wife is coming from. According to gosouthamerica.about.com, the city of Cali is Columbia’s third largest city and is known for its tourist attractions. World66.com calls Cali a “laid-back” place to hang out and a great place to dance. Seeing how popular Cali is, one might see why Marly, Gomez’s wife, was denied asylum status. Why might someone living in a vacation spot want to flee? Her reasons for leaving are not quite clear. We do know that obviously something big must have happened in order for her to have risked her life, along with her son, to come here and taking the even bigger risk of entering illegally, knowing the feelings this country has toward illegal immigrants. Something must have driven her to sacrificing what she had.
What got me thinking wasn’t the question of whether she should be allowed to stay or not, but rather the fact that she was denied asylum. As stated before, her reasons for coming to the U.S. aren’t very clear, or at least given to the public, but neither are many things that go on behind closed doors (such as with our government...but we’ll leave it there). Anything could have happened. One of my professors here at Biola came to the US pleading for asylum. He was pretty well-off in his country. However, a political/civil war broke out and he felt he needed to get his family and himself out of their country before things got too hot to handle. He came here first with a visa, and used that opportunity to ask for political asylum, but was denied. He claims he was denied because he didn’t arrive with gun shot wounds or battle scars to prove his struggle. Fortunately, he received amnesty through a gracious act by the Reagan administration. He didn’t understand why persecution had to be physical in order to be accountable. “Asylum may be granted to people who are already in the United States and are unable or unwilling to return to their home country because of persecution or a well founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion”(http://www.immihelp.com/gc/asylum.html). Fear is not always physical. Let’s try to be the land of the free and those who want to be free as well (and do it right and justly!).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I am curious to see a follow-up article on this topic; from what both you and the writer covered, there seems to be the obvious "gaps" that need to be fulfilled in order to fully comprehend the issue. The truth of the matter remains in the wife's reasoning for coming here, but the justice of the matter seems to be the denial of her entrance. I found it fascinating that you tied a personal story from a Biola professor in order to further your argument. It seems that sometimes all we need is a personal connection to take an issue to heart.
I truly love your passion for this issue. It shows in your writing and research that this issue caught your interest. I agree with Bethany that this truly encompasses a ton of issues all of them complicated and all of them a bit gray. I also hope that you continue to pursue this issue.
I think that the problem with fear of persecution, is that it is hard to judge. With a wound of some sort, it is easier to see the problem. I'm guessing that since the psychological is harder to judge, that there may have just been not enough evidence to plead her case. I'm not saying that people should not get amnesty for fear of persecution, just that it is harder on both sides to make the decision of who gets it and who doesn't. Without all the information on this particular case, we can't really know who was in the wrong.
I agree with you and Julianna about the fact that a physical wound shouldn't be necessary to be given asylum. I find it ridiculous that someone must be injured to be able to come to the U.S. You were also asking why would his wife want to come to the U.S. and I think a lot of it was because her husband is here. Anyways if you explain a little earlier in the article what asylum actually is that would be helpful, but I enjoyed it and I think you should also continue to develope this topic.
Post a Comment