Federico García Lorca

Federico García Lorca was born on 5 June 1898. In his honor, listen to Estrella Morente sing "Los Cuatro Muleros."

Lorca cherished the profound influence of Arab, Persian, and Islamic cultures on the culture of Spain, and he highlighted it in his poetry and lectures:

• "Just as in the siguiriya [the prototypical song form of the cante jondo. . .] and in its daughter genres are to be found the most ancient oriental elements, so in many poems of cante jondo there is an affinity to the oldest oriental verse. When our songs reach the extremes of pain and love they come very close in expression to the magnificent verses of Arab and Persian poets. The truth is that the lines and features of far Arabia still remain in the air of Cordoba and Granada." -- Federico García Lorca, "Historical and Artistic Importance of the Primitive Andalusian Song Called Cante Jondo"


• "In all Arabian music, in the dances, songs, elegies of Arabia, the coming of the Duende is greeted by fervent outcries of Allah! Allah! God! God!, so close to the Olé! Olé! of our bull ring that who is to say they are not actually the same, and in all the songs of southern Spain the appearance of the Duende is followed by heartfelt exclamations of God alive! -- profound, human, tender, the cry of communication with God through the medium of the five senses and the grace of the Duende. . . ." -- Federico García Lorca, "The Duende: Theory and Divertissement"

According to Yair Huri, Lorca, in turn, has had a far-reaching influence on Arab poets, especially those of the 1950s and 1960s: "'In Your Name this Death is Holy': Federico García Lorca in the Works of Modern Arab Poets" (Ciberletras 13, July 2005). He has found his way into the hearts of Iranians, too, through the translations of such writers as Ahmad Shamlou.

Ironically, the European Union chose to issue tough new rules to expel undocumented immigrants (many of whom are from Europe's former colonies in North Africa and West Asia) on the birthday of the poet who lamented the "Reconquista" of 1492 -- "An admirable brand of civilization, of poetry, of architecture, and delicacy unique in the world -- all were lost, to be replaced by a poor, craven town, a 'wasteland' now dominated by the worst bourgeoisie in Spain," said Lorca -- which compelled Jews and Muslims to convert to Christianity and expelled those who refused to submit to forced conversion: "Les Etats membres de l'UE s'accordent sur les conditions d'expulsions des sans-papiers" (Le Monde, 5 June 2008).

Criminalizing Immigrants, Administratively

Criminalization of unauthorized immigration is one of the few right-wing legislative initiatives in the United States that massive demonstrations, major wildcat strikes, and lobbying, by capitalists as well as trade unions, managed to block in 2006, but the White House is achieving administratively what the Right couldn't get legislatively:

In temporary courtrooms at a fairgrounds here, 270 illegal immigrants were sentenced this week to five months in prison for working at a meatpacking plant with false documents.

The prosecutions, which ended Friday, signal a sharp escalation in the Bush administration's crackdown on illegal workers, with prosecutors bringing tough federal criminal charges against most of the immigrants arrested in a May 12 raid. Until now, unauthorized workers have generally been detained by immigration officials for civil violations and rapidly deported. (Julia Preston, "270 Illegal Immigrants Sent to Prison in Federal Push," New York Times, 24 May 2008)

The 2006 demos came at the height of the housing bubble in the US, whose construction boom had significantly boosted undocumented immigrants' economic bargaining power and bolstered their political confidence. Now, after the burst of the bubble, it would be very difficult to mount the same level of action for immigrant rights: Eduardo Porter, "Housing Slump Takes a Toll on Illegal Immigrants" (New York Times, 17 April 2007).

For the ruling class, immigrant workers are the most disposable part of the reserve army of labor, who are also useful as scapegoats on whom they can blame economic troubles. The spontaneous consciousness of workers is more often shaped by experience of competition for private-sector jobs and public-sector programs than solidarity, especially in the context where the frequency of industrial actions has so declined that most workers have never had a chance to experience working together to win. That makes it very difficult -- but also urgent -- to create a political culture that can withstand the divide and conquer strategy of the Right.

Iran, Islam, Immigration, and Israel

In the recent elections in both Italy and the United Kingdom, the Right, both soft and hard, won a dramatic victory, and all currents of the Left lost: Elisabetta Povoledo, "Immigrant Issue Key in Italy's Elections" (International Herald Tribune, 25 April 2008); Lidia Cirillo, "Right Victorious: Italian Elections -- A First Response" (International Viewpoint, May 2008); and Richard Seymour, "London Meltdown" (Lenin's Tomb, 3 May 2008). A neo-fascist gets a seat on the London Assembly, and Rome now has a neo-fascist mayor, apparently supported by not only fascists but also the "leaders" of the Jewish community: "Sandro Di Castro, president of the Jewish community's Bene Berith association, says the present sense of danger posed to Israel by Islamists and Iran outweighs memories of the more distant and tragic past of the mass deportations from Rome by the Nazis and Mussolini's anti-Jewish race laws" (Guy Dinmore, "Fascists and Jews United for Rome Mayor," Financial Times, 4 May 2008).

The Left of the global North has yet to come up with a principled and yet popular program on the intertwined national and international questions of Iran, Islam, immigration, and Israel, and the lack of it doesn't bode well especially when economic anxiety is on the rise. The Right has a simple tool it applies to the first three: demonize and criminalize them as much as possible. The defense of Israel serves many purposes at the same time: whitewashing the Right, distancing it from anti-Semitism of fascism of the twentieth century; anti-Semite-baiting leftists for criticizing Israel; and re-branding the Right as "the defender of the Western Civilization from a new fascist menace," the Islamic Republic of Iran, or a specter of a new Caliphate re-conquering Al-Andalus and imposing Sharia on Europeans, or both. The Center Left panders to, and sometimes runs to the right of, the Right on all these issues. The Far Left is better than the Center Left on Israel and immigration, but opinions on the Far Left are very much divided when it comes to Iran and Islam.

The British and Italian elections, therefore, may very well be harbingers of worse things to come.

The Politics of Fear in Québec

In the age of the "War on Terror," the politics of fear rages everywhere, and Canada, which prides itself on its official multiculturalism, is no exception. Micheline Carrier claims:

Selon leur habitude, les groupes ou individus de tendance intégriste s'attaquent d'abord aux droits des femmes. Cela ne se voit pas seulement dans des pays totalitaires où la religion sert de programme politique, mais aussi au Canada, aux États-Unis et en France, où l'État est censé être indépendant des pouvoirs religieux. . . . La montée de l’intégrisme religieux dans le monde n’est pas sans effet sur les sociétés canadienne et québécoise.

As is their habit, groups and individuals of the fundamentalist tendency initially attack the rights of women. That is seen not only in totalitarian countries where religion serves as the political program, but also in Canada, the United States, and France, where the state is supposed to be independent of religious powers. . . . The rise of religious fundamentlaism in the world is not without effect on Canadian and Québécois societies. (Micheline Carrier, "Est-ce de l'islamophobie de critiquer l'intégrisme islamiste ?" Trans. Yoshie Furuhashi, Sisyphe.org, 21 November 2007)

Fundamentalist Islam is a problem in such countries as the Gulf states, but the author blows the problem out of its proportion by sounding a false alarm that Canada, of all places, is vulnerable to it. Just how many Muslims are in Canada? According to the 2001 census, Muslims constituted merely 2% of the total Canadian population, and their proportion was estimated to be about 2.5% in 2006, of whom only a tiny minority must be fundamentalists -- if anything, Canada's points system of immigration, which favors the better off and better educated, means that many Muslim immigrants in Canada, like other immigrants, tend to be liberals of the "professional-managerial class" (to use Barbara and John Ehrenreich's term), given the correlation among class, education, and ideology.

A majority of Canadian Muslims live in Ontario: 356,700 in 2001. Alberta has the second largest population of Muslims in Canada: 103,900 in 2001. Québec, the second most populous Canadian province, comes only in third place with just 57,200 Muslims in 2001, half the size of the Muslim population in Alberta, even though Québec's population is nearly double Alberta's. That being the case, the politics of fear about Islamic fundamentalism in Québec is especially ridiculous, but it is apparently growing nonetheless, as noted by Richard Dufour in "Quebec’s Commission on 'Reasonable Accommodation' and the Growth of Anti-Muslim Chauvinism" (WSWS.org, 8 November 2007).

Instead, the Québécois ought to be asking themselves: does not anti-immigrant xenophobia, coupled with Islamophobia, undermine the Québécois struggle to fight for Québec's Francophone culture and equality with or independence from the rest of Canada, by chasing away Francophone Muslim immigrants?

Street-fighting Days

Street-fighting days, alas, are long behind the Axis of Feeble: leftists in the USA, the UK, Australia, Canada, and Japan:

Recent polls tell us, for instance, that 60% of Americans disapprove of President Bush's overall job performance; 74% disapprove of his handling of rising gasoline prices; 62% disapprove of his handling of the Iraq war; 63% think the president's role in the intelligence leak scandal was either illegal or unethical. Further, 45% of Americans think Bush should be censured or officially reprimanded for authorizing secret domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency, and an astonishing 33% of Americans think Bush should be impeached. (As a point of reference, public support for impeaching President Clinton averaged only 26% in the summer and fall of 1998.)

In many foreign countries, such a high level of popular discontent would translate rapidly into mass protests. (Rosa Brooks, "One More Job for Immigrants," Los Angeles Times, 14 April 2006)

The French, alone among peoples of filthy rich countries, still remember how to rock the government in the streets. They admirably put it in practice in fierce defense of their way of life: contre la précarité généralisée. That's a great start. No people who cannot defend themselves can hope to defend others. And yet, it is telling that, after the victory over the CPE, streets of France went quiet, even as the National Assembly passed a bill for selective immigration: for skilled and educated workers from the South, against non-skilled and ill educated workers from the South:

France's lower house of parliament easily passed a divisive immigration law put forward by Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy on Wednesday which has been heavily criticised by the opposition, the church and immigrant groups.

The law aims to attract skilled workers while keeping less skilled ones out. Critics say it will stigmatise foreigners, discriminate against the poor and undermine France's traditional role as a haven for the persecuted.

The deputies in the National Assembly, where the ruling UMP party has an easy majority, adopted the law by 367 votes to 164. The Senate will start debating it on June 6. (Emile Picy, "French Deputies back Divisive Immigration Bill," Reuters, 18 May 2006)

186,000 Deportations, 887,000 "Voluntary Departures"

Notice that it is "laws adopted in 1996" -- under the Bill Clinton administration -- that are responsible for deportations and "voluntary departures" of hundreds of thousands of immigrants:

No one keeps track of exactly how many American children were left behind by the record 186,000 noncitizens expelled from the United States last year, or the 887,000 others required to make a "voluntary departure." But immigration experts say there are tens of thousands of children every year who lose a parent to deportation.

Officials at the Department of Homeland Security say they are simply enforcing laws adopted in 1996, which all but eliminated the discretion of immigration officers to consider family ties before enforcing an old order of removal. (Nina Bernstein, "A Mother Deported, and a Child Left Behind," New York Times, November 24, 2004)

Breaking up families and leaving many children behind -- such are the "family values" of the Bushes and Clintons.

Licencias y Legalizacion para Todos

Latino voters may play a pivotal role in four of the most crucial swing states: New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and Florida. After a slow start (Michael Finnegan, "Kerry's Low Profile May Cost Crucial Latino Votes," Los Angeles Times, May 3, 2004), John Kerry finally got around to addressing Latino voters only to immediately drop a bombshell on them -- in an interview with the Spanish-language network Telemundo, no less: "Democrat John Kerry said he opposes state laws that give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, a position that puts him at odds with the Hispanic activists he is courting in the presidential race" (The Associated Press, "Kerry: No Licenses for Illegal Immigrants," USA Today, June 30, 2004).

That's very shortsighted. Spirited organizing drives for driver's licenses for immigrants, regardless of immigration status, have been among the few bright spots for immigrant communities in a tough anti-immigrant political climate of the post-9/11 United States. They have even won several concrete victories -- for instance, Maryland and New Mexico liberalized access to driver's licenses after the 9/11 terrorist attacks: "On Sept. 12, 2003, the Maryland attorney general issued a decision that a person’s inability to prove lawful presence is not a basis for denying a person a driver’s license" (National Immigration Law Center, "State Driver’s License Requirements," April 8, 2004); and on March 18, 2004, immigrants in New Mexico won the right to obtain a driver's license without proof of legal residency -- since then, New Mexico state officials say, "the percentage of uninsured drivers has been cut by a third" (Aurelio Rojas, "N.M. Steers in Different Direction on Licenses: Unlike California, It Offers Permits to Illegal Immigrants," The Sacramento Bee, May 23, 2004).

Had Gray Davis not twice vetoed legislation that would have allowed undocumented immigrants to obtain drivers' licenses (similar to Senate Bill 60, which Davis signed only when he faced the imminent recall), he could have run on the record of having improved public safety while defending immigrant rights, surviving or even possibly avoiding the recall election altogether. Latino support for Davis declined dramatically between 1998 and 2002: "At this point in the 1998 governor's race, 72% of Latino voters said they were backing Davis. He ultimately won 71% of the Latino vote, according to Los Angeles Times exit polls of voters. According to a Times poll published Tuesday, however, Davis is currently supported by 57% of likely Latino voters" (Matea Gold, "Fewer Latinos Back Davis This Time," Los Angeles Times, October 30, 2004). Davis cannot claim that he did not get the message from Latino communities: "The Latino legislative caucus refused to endorse Davis because of the veto. . . . [A] Spanish language radio station in Los Angeles collected pledges from 12,000 people saying they would not vote for Davis because of the veto" (Laura Kurtzman, "Nader Slams Davis, Promotes Green Party Candidate," Mercury News, October 9, 2002). In the end, "53 percent of Latinos voted for the recall" (Zachary Coile, "Traditionally Democratic Voters Jumped Ship: Support Lagged from Labor, Latinos, Women," San Francisco Chronicle, October 8, 2003).

In contrast to Davis, Peter Camejo has consistently stood up for immigrant rights, supporting legalization of undocumented workers and driver's licenses for all immigrants: "[Davis] promised for three years he would sign it [legislation allowing the undocumented to obtain driver's licenses], then he betrays the Latino community and doesn't sign it. And first, he watered it down tremendously, so it was not recognizable. I would have signed the original bill. I think people who are living here and paying taxes -- and all the powers that be know they're here and accept that they're here -- cannot be denied to have normal status" (Camejo for Governor, "Civil Rights"). More importantly, Camejo has walked the walk. E.g.:

(B. Marsh, "Santa Rosa March for Immigrant Workers (Photo Essay Part 2)", Sf.indymedia.org, August 2, 2002)

Can Camejo seize the moment and make defense of immigrant rights an integral part of the Nader/Camejo 2004 campaign on the national stage? Though Camejo is a vice presidential candidate, it is he, not Nader, who must take leadership. If Camejo succeeds in using the presidential campaign to raise consciousness about not only the occupation of Iraq but also immigrant workers' rights, serving to link Latino and Arab communities, the campaign has a chance of becoming a catalyst for a new anti-war movement rooted in the oppressed and exploited working-class communities' desire for their own liberation and empowerment, i.e. one that is qualitatively different from the existing one dominated by altruistic white peace activists and organizers.

¡Licencias y Legalizacion Para Todos!

A Day without a Mexican

Here's a new disaster film -- A Day without a Mexican/Un Día sin Mexicanos (Dir. Sergio Arau, 2004):

Watch the film's trailer at its official website.

The film envisions a mysterious cloud that envelops California and magically removes all the Latinos. The results are comical -- as in the case of the state senator's wife who must tackle the laundry without domestic help and the Border Patrol agents who fear for their jobs after all the migrants vanish. They are also pointed -- as schools and day cares shut down and panicked shoppers mob supermarkets for the last fresh fruits and vegetables. . . .

The disappearance leads Californians who once were dismissive or contemptuous of Latinos to hold candlelight vigils, where they sing "De Colores" with bad Spanish accents and march around with placards reading "Come back, amigos."

. . .[The director Sergio Arau and his wife Yareli Arizmendi who co-wrote the film's script] got the idea for the film when they visited New York and found the city observing a "Day Without Art," on which museums and galleries closed down to draw attention to the devastating effect of the AIDS epidemic on the art world.

"I said, 'Maybe what California needs is a day without Mexicans,' to revalue the role we play," said actress Arizmendi, who stars in the film and who was born in Mexico and raised in the United States. (Tyche Hendricks, "Dónde Están the Hired Hands?: 'A Day Without a Mexican' Portrays California Lacking a Third of Its People," San Francisco Chronicle, June 4, 2004)

A Day without a Mexican is a gentle satire (which Joe Rodriguez of The Mercury News says is "too polite" ["Who Would Pick Crops, Mow Lawns and Do Dishes?" June 11, 2004]), but what if the United States government actually succeeded in deporting all "illegal aliens" in the real world? "El profesor Raúl Hinojosa, de la Universidad de California en Los Angeles (UCLA) también actúa en la película y acaba de publicar un nuevo libro en que explora el impacto de la falta de inmigrantes en la economía californiana. 'La quinta economía más grande del mundo (la de California) está basada en la contribución de los inmigrantes', dijo hace poco a la prensa. 'Si realmente desaparecen todos los latinos en California sería una crisis mucho peor de como está en la película'" (Jorge Ramos Avalos, "Estados Unidos sin Latinos," June 7, 2004). Hinojosa's research demonstrated, for instance, that, based on a conservative estimate of 3 million undocumented Mexican workers, "[a] reduction in the undocumented Mexican immigrant population to zero [alone] would produce a dramatic drop in U.S. economic output (about $155 billion)" (Raul Hinojosa Ojeda, "Comprehensive Migration Policy Reform in North America: The Key to Sustainable and Equitable Economic Integration," August 2001, p. 6). Some advocate a more restrictive immigration policy, arguing that more immigrants, expanding the labor pool, depress wages, but Hinojosa says that further restrictions on immigrant rights, such as adoption of a neo-Bracero program, would produce a reduction in immigrant wages, which would in turn increase the demand for low-wage undocumented immigrants (August 2001, p. 6). In contrast, legalization of undocumented workers has been shown to raise their wages, creating a higher floor for wages of all workers: "Real wages of legalized undocumented workers rose an average of 15% in the 4-5 years following legalization, compared to declining real wages in the years prior to legalization" (US Department of Labor, 1996, p.43, qtd. in Hinojosa, August 2001, p. 28).

Since its May premier in cities with large Latino populations, A Day without a Mexican has done well in the United States: "It may not be on as many screens as some of the summer's big blockbusters, but the movie 'A Day Without A Mexican' has consistently sold out shows since it's recent opening" (Vivian Tamayo, "'A Day Without A Mexican' Released in Houston Theaters," June 1, 2004). See, also, indieWIRE:BOT's "Box Office Table" (June 2, 2004). The film will open in Latin America in August (Diego Cevallos/IPS, "Latinos or Chaos," June 23, 2004).

The film's funding, too, was a cross-border affair:

Respecto de la producción Yareli agregó: "Sentimos bonito de que se haya realizado con una inversión mexicana y algo de española, porque es un poco irónico traer capital de fuera para contar la realidad de los hispanos en California, y si, es cierto, un gran porcentaje de los mexicanos que llegan a Estados Unidos ocupan con gran dignidad empleos que los estadunidenses de pronto no quieren hacer, y se convierten, paralelamente, en uno de los pilares que sostienen la economía del país más poderoso del mundo, porque con su trabajo colaboran para hacer realidad el sueño americano. ("Impresionante Respuesta del Público a Un Día sin Mexicanos en California," La Jornada, May 27, 2004)

A darker irony, however, is that, while the high-concept film has achieved a modest success, making the US economy's dependence on labor of legal and illegal immigrants visible to the audience, immigration sweeps have struck fear into the hearts of many immigrants, bringing the film's images to life "without the comedy":

Across Southern California, in Ontario, Corona and Escondido, cities with Latino majorities, the streets are practically deserted. Storeowners complain of low sales. Residents avoid being seen in public, afraid that the U.S. Border Patrol will detain them and take them away.

Mothers call newspapers or immigrant organizations to ask, "Should we take our kids to school today?" and "Is there no danger?"

Outside on the streets, patrols roam: It's the immigration police, who detain people to find out if they are in the country legally. If they're not, residents are taken to detention centers to be processed for deportation to Mexico.

Suddenly, the script of the recent "mockumentary" film, "A Day Without a Mexican," seems to have become reality, but without the comedy. Right now in California there are sick people who don't dare go to clinics, business owners who fret about a 60 percent drop in sales, women who call their acquaintances asking if it's safe to go shopping.

In short, millions of people -- both longtime residents and recent immigrants -- are beset by the fear of being expelled.

"Those who didn't regularize their immigration status," says Raúl Villarreal, spokesman for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, "should have known that one day they would be found." Besides, he adds, "enforcing the law" is nothing new; similar immigration enforcement activities have been conducted in Texas and the Southwest.

At the headquarters of immigrant rights organizations, telephones don't stop ringing. Many of the calls come from terrorized residents: "I'm calling to report a sweep at the Chino swap meet," says one caller. "Police are collaborating with La Migra (immigration agents)."

At times the person who calls is an English-speaker who won't accept being spoken to in Spanish. "I'm calling to protest against the illegals, because it's time that they go back," one says. Some are more threatening, conflating their hatred of undocumented immigrants with the organization itself: "Leave, we'll burn your building down."

Such is life in a season of immigration sweeps in Southern California. The authorities hate the word "sweeps" because it connotes random checks. They insist that the raids are part of a search for coyotes (human traffickers) through operations based on specific information obtained from local and state police and "people in the community."

Around 500 undocumented immigrants have been detained since the beginning of June, when a mobile unit of 12 agents from the U.S. Border Patrol Station in Temecula, Calif. began to operate. The unit's jurisdiction is 3,000 square miles. The large radius of action means the unit can act autonomously, without having to respond to orders from superiors.

U.S. Border Patrol spokespeople insist that there is no new policy behind the sweeps, and that there is no reason for alarm.

So, why is the Latino community so alarmed? Why was there such a clamor that even the Mexican President Vicente Fox had to complain about "the abuses" during a trip to Chicago? Why did up to 10,000 people march in protest -- many joining the marches spontaneously -- in Ontario, Pomona, Pasadena and other cities?

The fears are not unfounded; they are based on what people are experiencing. The population of undocumented immigrants in the state is of course much larger than the 500 people detained. Some even put the number as high as 7 million. In the United States as a whole there are 3 million children who are U.S. citizens but whose parents are undocumented.

Some undocumented immigrants have lived here 10, 15, 20 years but have not legalized their status due to apprehension, apathy, a stubborn conservatism, ignorance or poverty. Because of the comfort of their daily routines -- they pay taxes, have jobs, families, refrigerators filled with food -- the undocumented tend to gradually achieve a feeling of safety.

The recent raids have punctured that thin film of security, horrifying millions of people and making them feel hunted.

Fear is the source of rumors that the detentions have expanded to Norwalk, Long Beach, Pasadena, San Fernando, San Bernardino, Santa Ana, Huntington Park, Santa Barbara -- cities where the Border Patrol denies carrying out operations.

The rumors increase the sensation of disquiet and vulnerability, feed on themselves, multiply and worsen the climate of intimidation. There's an overriding feeling that in this country, immigrants, even the well-established ones, are not safe.

Immigration raids far from the border were common in Southern California until 1994, when the emphasis shifted to military-style surveillance directly along highly trafficked border areas. Aggressive interior enforcement decreased, and when it did recur, mass protests often embarrassed the Border Patrol and other agencies into retreat.

The recent operations -- call them sweeps or patrols -- could continue, as government spokespeople have promised they will. They could expand to other areas if, as some people suspect, the recent detentions were a kind of pilot plan.

If they do continue, the sweeps could destroy the security of millions of people all over the country, generate more controversy and animosity and become an election-year issue.

A decade ago, anti-immigrant ballot initiatives sparked the emergence of a social protest movement in solidarity with immigrants. If the raids continue, there may be another resurgence of comparable pro-immigrant political activism. (Gabriel Lerner/Pacific News Service, "Immigration Sweeps Mean Disrupted Lives, Silent Streets," June 21, 2004)

If Ralph Nader, overcoming his populist ambivalence toward immigration, follows the lead of Peter Miguel Camejo, the Green Party and the Nader/Camejo campaign will have a role to play in the hoped-for resurgence of pro-immigrant organizing.

Free Ashraf Al-Jailani, Support Michele Swensen

Ashraf Al-Jailani is a Yemeni-born permanent legal resident of the United States. Al-Jailani married Michele Swensen, an American, in February 1996. They have three children, now ages 3 (Sami, who will be 4 on June 17), 5 (Layla,), and 7 (Amina). On October 23, 2002, Al-Jailani was arrested at his job, the Akron-based GOJO Industries' Cuyahoga Falls "soap-manufacturing plant where he'd worked as a quality-control chemist for more than two years" (Tiffani Helberg/Ohio News Network, "Wife Still Fights for Muslim Man's Justice," Columbus Dispatch, February 25, 2004, p. C5), on the pretext that "the appeal of a deportation order stemming from a domestic violence incident almost three years earlier had been denied," using the 1996 Immigration Act, even though "al-Jailani had been pardoned by Ohio Gov. Robert Taft in 2001 (Lauri Lebo, "Yemeni Man Still in York Jail; For Second Time, Judge Orders Man Out on Bail; Appeal Pending," York Dispatch, December 10, 2003). Five minutes later, six FBI agents showed up at Al-Jailani and Swensen's house to search it, saying that they found Al-Jailani's business card in the wallet of a suspected Al-Qaeda money launderer.

Al-Jailani has been imprisoned without charges ever since. The NewStandard reports that "Al-Jailani's FBI file, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, revealed that the government has no record of having investigated him" ("FOI Request Reveals FBI Never Investigated Yemeni for Terror Ties," June 2, 2004).

First in March 2003 and again in December 2003, U.S. Immigration Court Judge Walt Durling ordered Al-Jailani freed on bond, finding the government's "evidence" inadequate: "'If one steps back a moment and examines the government's theory, there is no direct evidence linking respondent to terrorism, only certain indirect 'links' to others known or suspected of being associated with terrorists.' Durling expressed surprise that the FBI has not interrogated Al-Jailani since his arrest in October 2002. When asked why, Charnesky said the bureau assumed Al-Jailani would simply lie. The judge found this answer strange" (Karen R. Long, "Judge Orders Kent Man Freed; U.S. Blocks Order," Plain Dealer, December 5, 2003, p. B1). By now, "Durling has ordered on three occasions that Al-Jailani be released on a $1,500 bond, but the federal government has blocked his release, appealing each decision" (Stephen Dyer, "Detainee, Children Still Apart: U.S. Refuses to Let Jailed Former Kent Man Go to Portage Custody Hearing," Akron Beacon Journal, April 16, 2004). Judge "Durling issued his third order releasing Al-Jailani on March 23: (Dyer, April 16, 2004).

The government's detention of Al-Jailani has taken a heavy toll on his family: "Swensen said Al-Jailani is limited to one phone call every other week. Because he was the family's sole breadwinner, she's now scraping by on government assistance and can't afford to visit him in prison. . . . Swensen said she has battled depression since her husband's arrest. One of the lowest points, she said, came last summer when her condition worsened and she had to spend two months in the hospital. Because of her absence, she lost custody of the children" (Helberg, February 25, 2004). Her nightmare has not come to an end:

The children of a former Kent man of Yemeni descent being detained by the federal government will remain in the custody of Portage County authorities until the man's wife can demonstrate she is successfully undergoing psychological treatment for severe depression.

The county agreed to an accelerated reunification plan for the family, which is likely to not include its father for quite some time. . . .

The Department of Homeland Security declined Al-Jailani's request to be transported from Pennsylvania to Portage County so he could be present for Monday's hearing regarding his children. The department declined the request even though the Portage County Jail, which holds federal prisoners from time to time, is located next door to the Portage County Juvenile Court where Monday's hearing took place.

The hearing was shortened because county authorities agreed to drop the allegations of neglect and abuse against Al-Jailani's wife, Michele Swensen, which could have led to the couple's children becoming wards of the state.

Instead, in a sort of plea bargain, the children were declared `"dependent," which means the three children -- ages 3, 5, and 7 -- lack the proper support they need due to their mother's mental condition and are in danger of suffering abuse or neglect if they are left in her care.

Juvenile Court Magistrate James Aylward cited Swensen's "mental health issues" and Al-Jailani's "detainment" in making his decision. . . .

Swensen was hospitalized a couple of months ago for severe depression, which she claims was brought on by her husband's continued detention. That detention also means the children must remain in foster care because Al-Jailani can't receive custody while he's in jail.

Instead, Swensen will have to get a psychological evaluation and undergo a treatment regimen that will include drug testing to ensure she takes her prescribed medication.

Aylward said during Monday's hearing that if Swensen followed the plan, she could have supervised visitation of the children before the proceedings' next hearing in about 30 days, during which the family's case management plan will be detailed. . . . (Stephen Dyer, "Detainee's Kids Stay in Foster Care," Akron Beacon Journal, May 4, 2004)

What can you do to help free Ashraf Al-Jailani and restore their children to Al-Jailani and Michele Swensen?

Click on the link to sign a petition to Release Ashraf Al-Jailani from His Unjust Detention.

Cf.

• Help Ashraf
• The Greater Cleveland Immigrant Support Network, "Ashraf al-Jailani"
• Not In Our Name, "Ashraf Al-Jailani, Jailed Since 2002 Without Charge; Wife Fights for Justice"
• Anthony Lewis, "Cruelty without Mercy," New York Times, May 13, 2000
• Doug Moe, "What Country Is This Again?" Capital Times, May 4, 2004
• The New Standard, "FOI Request Reveals FBI Never Investigated Yemeni for Terror Ties," June 2, 2004

Michele Swensen is burdened by over $30,000 in legal fees. To make contributions to Ashraf Al-Jailani's legal defense fund, go to the Help Ashraf website and click on the link "Make a Donation."

If you cannot donate online, send your contributions to:
Michele Swensen, 1817 Mohican Place, Kent, OH 44240

For more information, contact Swensen at enigmatik2 at aol.com

To contact Ashraf Al-Jailani's attorney Farhad Sethna, visit "Farhad Sethna's
Immigration Page."

"Ashraf Al-Jailani and his American wife, Michele Swensen, at home in Kent, Ohio. Swensen, a Christian, said her husband, a Muslim, harbors no intent of harming anyone" ("FBI Keeps Yemeni Jailed: Federal Agents Accuse Him of Being a Terrorist but Offer No Documentation," York Daily Record, April 22, 2004)