My Immigrant Background Taught Me — and My Kids — to Embrace Difference

Last week, Kirstjen Nielsen, the Homeland Security Secretary, testified once again in front of Congress in an attempt to justify the federal government’s ongoing actions against undocumented people at the border. Among her assertions, Nielsen said that the chain-link enclosures used to hold undocumented children could not really be described as cages, and that some parents who had been separated from their children at the border were subsequently deported without their kids. These grim updates to the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance” policy of immigrant family separation shortly preceded a report from the New York Times that revealed the extent to which family separation remains ongoing — despite a federal judge’s order to halt the practice some nine months ago.

“The latest data reported to the federal judge monitoring one of the most controversial of President Trump’s immigration policies shows that 245 children have been removed from their families since the court ordered the government to halt routine separations under last spring’s ‘zero tolerance’ border enforcement policy,” reads the March 9 Times report.

The Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP) reports that the total number of immigrant children removed from their families since the summer of 2018 may be even higher. In the six months after Trump issued an Executive Order to end the practice, the organization interviewed nearly 10,000 immigrants and asylum-seekers who entered US border custody at or near McAllen, Texas. Through that process, the TCRP identified 272 adults who said they had been forcibly separated from one or more children under the age of 18.

“The government has admitted what we’ve known for months: they never stopped separating families who came to this country seeking safety,” Efrén C. Olivares, the Racial and Economic Justice Program Director at Texas Civil Rights Project, said in a statement made available to us. “The Trump Administration has tried every strategy it can think of in our courts to continue taking children away from their parents, with no transparency about how these decisions are made, no plan to reunite them, and no accountability.”

According to the TCRP, among the 272 adults they spoke to who said they had been separated from child family members, 38 were parents or legal guardians who reported being separated from a total of 46 children were separated. 25 of these children were reportedly under the age of 10. The youngest infant impacted was 8.5 months old at the time of separation from her mother.

“To date, the government has not reported these children to anyone — neither to the courts nor to Congress — and the government has admitted it may be impossible to find all separated children,” TCRP reports.

The TCRP report recounts an interview with a father who was allegedly separated from his seven-year-old son because of a misdemeanor conviction for battery over 10 years ago. Another father was reportedly separated from his one-year-old daughter and nine-year-old son on “uncorroborated allegations of gang affiliation.” A woman, who fled her country because she was being held captive as a sexual slave, was reportedly separated from her child because officials said she was “a danger to society and unfit to be a parent” after they learned she had shot her captor non-fatally in self-defense. The list goes on and on.

According to NBC News, immigration officials can separate children “if the adult is not the parent or legal guardian of the child” and “if the safety of the child is at risk or because of ‘serious criminal activity’ by the adult.” Legal recourse can be limited for these parents.

But there is hope. Earlier this year, we reported that several law firms including the Southern Poverty Law Center have filed a lawsuit on behalf of 10,000 detained immigrant children due to allegations of unfit facilities, illegal prolonged stays, sexual abuse, and much more.

On March 8, in a promising victory for undocumented families, US District Judge Dana Sabraw ruled in favor of a separate lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) against the Trump administration and said that “all migrant families separated during the government’s border crackdown should be included in a class-action lawsuit,” the Texas Tribunereports.

“The hallmark of a civilized society is measured by how it treats its people and those within its borders,” Sabraw wrote in a 14-page ruling. “That Defendants may have to change course and undertake additional effort to address these issues does not render modification of the class definition unfair; it only serves to underscore the unquestionable importance of the effort and why it is necessary (and worthwhile).”

(Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

From the get-go, a major priority of the Trump administration’s anti-immigration policy has been the restriction of “chain migration,” the trickle-down immigrant sponsorship process by which many families — including his wife Melania’s — immigrate to the US. To this end, the administration has rolled out one policy after another that specifically targets immigrant families, from separations at the US-Mexico border to threats on birthright citizenship. The administration has also made it nearly impossible for immigrants to become citizens if they’ve used social services like children’s health insurance or SNAP.

All the while, the president and his staff have repeatedly insisted that the country would continue to welcome skilled “legal” immigrants who would be an asset to the economy, even announcing a plan to increase the number of H-1B visas the US would give. Now, the Trump administration is targeting tens of thousands of those same, highly skilled visa holders at the family level by moving to eliminate their spouses’ legal right to work in the United States.

On Wednesday, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reportedly submitted a proposed regulation to the White House Office of Management and Budget that would put an end to a program that gives work permits to the spouses of H-1B visa holders who are waiting to receive green cards — a process that can take years.

H-1B visas are temporary work visas provided to foreign-born workers in “specialty services,” such as a STEM field. The visas are chosen through a random lottery that workers must apply for in advance. Spouses or dependents of H-1B visa holders who are above age 21 have, in the past, been able to apply for H-4 visas so that they can work while their partners wait to receive permanent residency. The rule that permits certain spouses of H-1B visas to qualify for temporary work visas of their own was only put into place in 2015, under the Obama administration.

Ending the program would mean some 90,000 people who are married to temporary work visa holders will lose their ability to work legally in the US. According to Bloomberg, most of the spouses who will be impacted by this policy change are women from India.

“USCIS continues reviewing all employment-based visa programs,” USCIS spokesperson Jessica Collins said in a statement Thursday. “No decision about the regulation concerning the employment eligibility of certain H-4 spouses is final until the rule-making process is complete.”

The Trump administration announced its intentions to alter these programs in the spring of 2017, when the president signed the “Buy American and Hire American” executive order. The order outlines the administration’s general plans to exclude more and more foreign-born workers from the American workforce and to discourage the purchase of certain products made outside the US. Following this order, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services indicated that it would do away with the H-4 program, according to Wired.

Very soon after the Obama administration implemented the H-4 program for the spouses of certain H-1B visa-holders, a group of IT workers calling themselves “Save Jobs USA” filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, claiming that the government was illegally taking jobs from US-born citizens. The group was represented by John Miano, an attorney for the Center for Immigration Studies, a far-right anti-immigration group. But now there’s no longer a need for the lawsuit to continue on, as the government will be ending the program itself — a win for the far-right groups who supported the suit.

In a 2018 Wired article about those who stand to lose their ability to work with the end of the H-4 program, one woman, Sampada Khanapurkar, summarized how this change is acting as a deterrent for families like hers. “I mean, I’ve been here so long, I just thought, ‘These people are mine.’ And now people aren’t accepting me. It’s not a good feeling,” Khanapurkar said. “I told my husband yesterday, if this is how we’re feeling and this is how we’re going to be feeling every single day of our lives, living in fear, never know when our visas will be revoked, never know when we’ll be accepted here legally, in spite of being legal, we might as well go to a place where people are accepting of us.”

Deterring Black and brown immigrants from coming to the US, or staying in the US, is exactly what these policies are designed to do. The administration spelled out clearly that the cruel policy of separating children from their parents at the US-Mexico border was intended as a deterrent measure, to scare asylum-seekers and migrants from even attempting to come to the US. The new proposed policy represents yet another example of a measure that creates a hostile environment for individuals who wish to immigrate.

What do you think? Tell us on Twitter @BritandCo.

(Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Mariska Hargitay is the woman of the hour anywhere she goes, with her iconic Law & Order: SVUrole as Olivia Benson under her belt for the last 25 years. The character is an absolute advocate to women — and assault victims of any gender — through her words, actions, and powerful convictions of each perpetrator on the show. She takes great care with her victims and pursues perpetrators with fervor, and slowly as you watch the show..the line blurs between Olivia and Mariska.

This isn't anything new — just recently Mariska literally stopped production on the show to help a child (who mistook her for an actual police officer) find her mom. It's just who Mariska is. She walks the walk and talks the talk — including during her speech at Variety's Power of Women's Power of Women event.

Image via NBC Universal

As a Power of Women honoree, Mariska was recognized in regards to her work as an advocate for sexual assault survivors. She took the stage and used her platform to discuss rape and assault conviction reversals, shining a light on the recent overturned ruling in Harvey Weinstein's landmark NYC case. Here's what she said:

Today I want to talk about reversing convictions, and more specifically I want to talk to you about how impossible it is to reverse mine. It’s impossible to reverse my conviction that survivors matter. It is impossible to reverse my conviction that what happens to us matters, and that our society must respond to survivors with a more a compassionate, holistically, deeper, and more nuanced understanding of what healing means.

It is impossible to reverse my conviction that after a trauma, survivors can reclaim lives of hope, of possibility, of audacious risk, beautiful intimacy, and glorious, glorious abundant joy. And I stand before you as evidence of that statement.

It is impossible to reverse my conviction that we must listen to survivors as experts on what justice means. It is extraordinary how little their voices are consulted, let alone incorporated, in the process of deciding how to repair harm. Justice is not a one-size-fits-all journey.

It is impossible to reverse my conviction that patriarchal impunity has to end. Patriarchal impunity is when a male-dominated system exempts perpetrators from punishment. Studies show that only 20% of all rape cases in the U.S. are reported to the police, and that between 5 and 0% of all rapes result in a guilty plea or a conviction. So why do 80% of victims not report? Because they're met with a system that grants impunity to perpetrators; a system that blames victims; a system that accepts only those victims who are experienced as "real" rape; a system that completely misunderstands the neurobiology of trauma, which causes behavior in women that doesn't fit the picture of how a "real victim" would act.

Is that change needed that victims should just pull themselves together? Just buck up and report anyway? No. No, it's the system that receives them that needs to change

It is impossible to reverse my conviction — and the conviction of my extraordinary team, The Joyful Heart — that the backlog of untested rape kits can be brought to zero; that the testing of all new kits must be mandated; that we need a statewide kit tracking system; and that survivors have the right to access the status of their kits.

It is impossible to reverse my conviction that grammar — yes, grammar — that we use when we speak about rape must change. In the sentence, "A woman is raped," there's a crime and there's a victim, but there's no perpetrator. Where's the perpetrator? Where is he? Statistically, as we know, most likely he's walking free. He's so free that he doesn't even appear in the language about the crime that he committed. Is that not extraordinary? It's extraordinary that in the very grammar, the perpetrator goes free. Reintroducing perpetrators in the language of rape will make some very unwieldy grammar, but that's the nature of change. It's unwieldy, it's messy, it's uncomfortable, but it's necessary.

Image via NBC Universal

Hargitay continued on in her prolific speech to describe that rape shouldn't be considered a "crime of passion" because it's "not simply the next step in the trajectory of his passion" when a man takes a consensual hookup too far and assaults a woman against her will. She stated that it's "an exercise of power," doubling down that the language we use is important.

The speech went on to address that rape is both about power and control, as a "construct" that was "built, and assembled, and reinforced over time." She noted that there are people with these positions of power — and she specifically called out those in the entertainment industry — that could make a difference and aligned themselves to victims and survivors.

After this and some other remarks, Hargitay specifically called out the Weinstein conviction reversal. She said:

I do want to say something about the Harvey Weinstein conviction, specifically about the reason that it was overturned: too many women's voices. Too many women's voices were allowed to speak. Hallelujah! Amen! I can't imagine anything more beautiful than that. The Daily podcast episode talked about how it was so risky for the prosecution to have that many women testify. Risky to let women speak? You're damn right it is!

Too many women speaking brings change. Too many women speaking shakes the establishment. Too many women means we get listened to more, and people might actually hear what we have to say. Look what happened when women started saying just two words, right? Me too — just as an example — a tidal wave of change. Me too.

And then of course, there was the response: the Me Too Movement. The backlash. The examination of whether the changes that have come are lasting, or are even positive. Of course there's a backlash! What did they expect? For women to speak repeatedly, loudly, together, with a purpose — for there to be no backlash? The backlash is evidence of how powerful those voices were, how powerful those voices ARE.

Follow us on Facebook for more celebrity and pop culture news.

Header image via NBC Universal