For years, Saddam’s thugs tortured Sami Alkarim, an Iraqi artist because he was considered subversive. Now thanks to the Patriot Act and other ridiculous laws passed after 9/11 our government is denying Mr. Alkarim permanent residency in the land of the free and the home of the brave. He’s considered a terrorist by the Department of Homeland Security. Why? Read for yourself (via McClatchy)
WASHINGTON — Almost every day for three years, prison guards at one of Saddam Hussein’s most notorious prisons tortured Sami Alkarim.
Now, in a cruel twist of fate, the accomplished Iraqi artist is being treated like a terrorist by the U.S., the country where he sought refuge.
U.S. officials have told him they can’t give him permanent residency in Denver because of messenger work he did as a teenager for the same political party that counts the current prime minister of Iraq as a member. […]
The broad language of the Patriot Act and other laws bars refugees and asylum seekers from living and working in the U.S. if they supported or were members of an armed group in their homelands. They’re considered terrorists or supporters of terrorists even if they opposed dictators or helped the U.S. government. […]
Previously, immigrants who were denied a green card after being given asylum were told they wouldn’t be deported. Officials said their cases would eventually be resolved.
However, the DHS began recently sending some immigrants letters informing them that the agency intends to revoke their asylum. As a result, they’d be deported. […]
Some of the most startling stories involve Iraqis — some of whom have worked for the U.S. government under threat of death and now could have even more to fear as U.S. troops are redeployed.
In one recent case, a middle-aged Iraqi mother of two teenagers was deemed a terrorist and barred refuge in the U.S. despite her work for the State Department as an economic development adviser.
Anna, as she is known by her American colleagues, is seen as a supporter of terrorism because of her work for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, a mainstream Iraqi political party that the current president of Iraq belongs to. She’s no longer active in the party.
Anonymous callers have warned her that they’d take revenge for her work for the U.S. government.
Mr. President, you have it in your power to stop these travesties of justice. We should not be deporting brave men and women who helped us back to the very same countries they fled to save their lives, and which may very well condemn them to a virtual death sentence upon their return, merely based on laws that were sloppily drafted and shamefully passed by Congress at the height of the panic following September 11. “Anna” and Sami Alkarim are just two examples from Iraq. There are thousands of others, from dictatorial African regimes such as the ones in Zimbabwe and Ethiopia to Asian countries like Nepal and Burma. That these people are considered terrorists under the arcane and frankly over broad legalese of Bush era anti-terrorism laws is ridiculous, and would be laughable were the consequences these individuals face not so deadly serious.
Please, I beg of you, Mr. Obama, do not deport these people. Do not let the DHS bureaucracy created in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks label innocent people, many of them, like “Anna,” who provided aid and assistance to the US government, terrorists. Give all of them a fair chance to prove they are entitled to waivers, waivers you have the power to grant, so that they can remain in America and not risk death by deportation.
And Congress must also amend these laws so that these travesties of justice can be halted and future ones prevented. Do you hear me Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid? Sure, there are lots of things on Congress’ plate, but this isn’t a controversial matter. It shouldn’t be a bipartisan issue. It ought to be something that both republicans and democrats can agree upon. A famous artist like Salim Alkarim who was imprisoned by Saddam Hussein for his “subversive artworks” shouldn’t have to bear the burden of being named a terrorist merely because he was once acted as a messenger for a political party of which the current Iraqi Prime Minister is a member.
As Lt. Colonel Army Dennis Chapman, an Army officer who headed up a military transition team in Kurdish Iraq, and worked with Anna said about Anna being labeled a “terrorist” under US law:
“It deprives the word ‘terrorism’ of any meaning.”
Yes it does, sir, yes it does.
.
Dear President Obama,
We, the undersigned 44 U.S. organizations, represent concerned Americans and thousands of individuals who are committed to providing the people of Iraq with effective humanitarian and development assistance …
A commitment to resettlement in the United States for the most vulnerable Iraqi refugees. Refugee resettlement is an essential tool to protect the most vulnerable Iraqi refugees and to share the burden of hosting them. In that regard, we urge you to commit to accepting 50% of the Iraqi refugees who UNHCR identifies as in need of resettlement. We would also recommend that the federal agencies involved in the resettlement process, including the Department of State, Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Refugee Resettlement are well-coordinated and adequately funded to ensure a smooth and efficient resettlement process.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I completely disagree with this, and will never support this or any similar project. Resettling Iraqi refugees in the United States is not a solution to the catastrophe the United States brought to their lives.
I work with and support organizations, such as this one, whose goals are to help prepare Iraqi refugees to work on behalf of Iraq and Iraqis, and to eventually return and help rebuild their country. I do not support projects whose goal is to rob Iraq of its most valuable resource, and to further rob Iraqis and their descendants of their patrimony, their heritage, and their identity.
.
The UN’s World Refugee Survey 2009, published in May, estimated that 1.2 million Iraqi refugees are currently in Syria; 209,200 of them were registered with the UNHCR as of last month.
Iraqi refugees are not legally allowed to work in Syria. As their savings diminish, more and more of them are relying on the UNHCR for financial assistance, health care, education and food.
Jordan hosts the second largest number of Iraqi refugees. The World Refugee Survey puts their number at 450,000, of whom 65,000 were registered with the UNHCR in January 2009.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Yes, those of us who work with refugees and on refugee issues are very aware of this. And how, exactly, does this make it right to “resettle” Iraqis in the United States? There are no other short term solutions than to permanently rob Iraq of its most valuable resource, and permanently displace a couple of million Iraqis?
The article identifies a few Iraqis, but this policy of deportation applies to all asylum seekers. As far as I know there are no “resettlement in America” plans for a million Iraqi refugees. Maybe you know something I don’t but this report refers to a few thousand people, many of them who have no connection to Iraq. The reporter focused on 2 of the Iraqi asylum seekers for obvious reasons (ie, a belief that American readers would be more sympathetic to those individuals), but this applies to many people of varying nationalities.
I think we are talking about two different things here. I am referring here to this: “we urge you to commit to accepting 50% of the Iraqi refugees who UNHCR identifies as in need of resettlement.” I do not support en masse resettlement of Iraqi refugees in the United States.
As for the article you cited and commented on, my only disagreement is in your very self-referential characterization of Iraqis who worked on behalf of the Americans in Iraq as “brave men and women who helped us”, and I suggested you consider whether you would characterize Americans as “brave men and women who helped the Chinese” were the United States to be invaded and occupied by China (or some other powerful country). As for the rest of the article, and your comments on it, I am in, as I said, wholehearted agreement.
Note that the plea cited by Oui comes from a group that works with USAID, an “aid and development organization” that is, in fact, a part of the United States government. Its purpose is to advance United States interests in the guise of providing aid and development in the target countries. I know a number of Iraqis who became involved with USAID briefly, and quit when they discovered they were actually working for the U.S. government, and contributing more to American propaganda than actually furthering any Iraqi interests. One of my close friends who worked for them very briefly in Baghdad told me he could not tolerate the corruption.
I also have an old friend from Erbil, an engineer who spent about seven or eight months working for a major American corporation on a much-publicized “development” project in Kurdistan, and who found the corruption and incompetence intolerable. This project was a big part of the Americans’ “look at all the wonderful things we are doing for Iraqis” propaganda. It was never completed, and what WAS done was very shoddy.
It is very likely that this “Anna” worked for USAID in Kurdistan, as did several other Iraqis I know. Oddly, none of the other Iraqis I know who were involved with American projects in Kurdistan feel they are under threats of any kind, and many are still in Iraq.
Steven, I wholeheartedly agree with the main points of what you have written. You are absolutely right that it is shameful. However, I must take issue with this:
“We should not be deporting brave men and women who helped us…“
No, you should not be deporting the Iraqi collaborators who helped you with the invasion and occupation of their country, but “Brave men and women who helped us”? Really, Steven? Isn’t that just a tad self-referential?
How would you characterize those “brave men and women” if they were American citizens who had aided, abetted, and collaborated in the invasion and occupation of the United States by a power bent on turning your country into a dependent client state? How would you characterize those same “brave men and women” if they had collaborated with the invading and occupying power in transforming your country’s political, economic, and social systems to serve its imperial interests? How ould you characterize those same “brave men and women” if they had collaborated in the obliteration of your country’s civil institutions in order to build a civil society that was dependent on and suited the interests of the occupying power? Would you characterize them in that case as “brave men and women”, or in some other way?
PS The idea that “Anna” is in jeopardy in Iraq is bogus. She will fit in just fine in Kurdistan, where the rulers are all collaborators, too.
I don’t think it’s fair to characterize her as a collaborator. That assumes there was a legitimate government in place at the time she was working with the Americans trying to develop Kurdistan. She didn’t betray anyone to the Nazis for gawdssake. She worked to try to help her fellow Kurds. The Americans had the money and were trying to make an effort. As for who might be making threats against her, who says they are Kurds?
So, if the United States were invaded and occupied by, say, China, you would be just fine with Americans who worked with the Chinese occupiers?
As for the Americans “having the money and making the effort”, what exactly were the Americans making an effort to do? Help Iraqis? Really?