My friend Anji M. alerts me to the case of Gokal and Sheila Kapoor. The couple and their son came to America in 1997 illegally in order to escape persecution by the Taliban. Gokal then filed papers appealing for political asylum. Surely a Hindu fleeing from a brutal fundamentalist regime would qualify, no? Newsweek reports:
…four years after his case first made its way into the system, it was finally dismissed on the basis that the TalibanÂ’s removal from power meant that the family did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution. By then the septuagenarian had a Social Security number, worked as a baggage handler at Dulles Airport, paid taxes and had hoped to be included in a U.S. program that routinely granted asylum to Hindu refugees from Afghanistan. What he didnÂ’t take into account was the extra scrutiny he would receive in the post-9/11 world.
The immigration judge who initially turned down his application was critical of the fact that KapoorÂ’s prominent brother, Dr. Wishwa Kapoor, chief of general internal medicine at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, did not attend the immigration hearing. For this reason, the judge apparently believed he must have aided and abetted his brotherÂ’s illegal entry into the United States.
The judge was wrong on both counts. Hindus do not believe they can live in Afghanistan without being persecuted, and there are so few left in the country itÂ’s hard to prove otherwise. And Dr. Kapoor didnÂ’t testify because his older brother, now 70, was too proud to ask him. The judge could have summoned the doctor to testify, rather than smear him, a man of impeccable reputation who was not there to defend himself, let alone his brother.
Ten days ago, Dr. Kapoor got a 10 p.m. call from his sister in Virginia to say that their brother and his wife, Shiela, 69, had been taken from their home by immigration officials. The officials told the coupleÂ’s son–who had graduated from high school earlier that day–that his parents would be back in a few hours. They were not, and it took two days before a lawyer hired by Dr. Kapoor found out that the couple were in Pamunkey prison, north of Richmond, Va.
Well sure. Everyone knows we’ve won the war against terror in Afghanistan so they should be just fine.
The family of Gokal’s brother started a website appealing for help since they didn’t know what else to do. It was subsequently that Newsweek picked up the story.
No one knows why they are in detention. They are in their 70s, and in failing health. They are truly kind and gentle people, and have done nothing wrong. We have been told nothing about why they are there and when or if they’ll get out. They have not been charged with anything. We are extremely concerned about their health and their ability to deal with the harsh conditions of the detention facility.
After experiencing religious persecution in Afghanistan, Gokal and Shiela, who are from a small religious minority, applied for asylum in the United States almost a decade ago. They did everything right – obtaining work permits, paying their taxes, and enrolling their son in one of the best school districts in Virginia. Gokal and Shiela began working at an age when most Americans would retire, so they could provide for their only son. They worked, lived, and settled into a community full of family and friends who cared for them, loved them and supported them, and lived quiet lives, following all the rules of their new country. We want them back with us, safe and sound!
At the bottom of the website there is a form you can use to write your Congressperson.
Please take a few minutes and send a fax through this website, asking the United States to release our family Gokal and Shiela, and reunite them with their son and our family. We are asking for faxes to be sent to your own congressional representatives and the president, and to the congresspeople in Virginia, where they are being held without cause. You can use the template letter on the next page, edit it, or write your own letter. THANK YOU!
this is ridiculous, and only expect it to get worse now that London got bombed. The worst part was they put these poor people in a prison, like they were some sort of dogs. God damn, Bush has made this country into absolute garbage.
Is it possible to have such an unfeeling desi brother?
Seeing as how several hundred thousand Afghan refugees that were living in camps in Pakistan and Iran have returned to their native land to rebuild their homes and their nation, why should this couple receive special consideration?
While tha Taliban were clearly anti-Hindu, can the same be said of the current Karzai government? Unlikely, considering that Karzai lived in India when he had no where else to go, and Abdullah Abdullah visits India so frequently you’d think he had a second home there. Making fear of religious persecution the main appeal of their asylum application was a misguided legal tactic.
Afghanistan has always been a rather difficult place to live – it was never a modern nation state. Having enjoyed the comforts and protections that a modern society can provide, it is understandable that the couple wishes to stay. But avoiding economic hardship is generally not recognized as grounds for granting asylum.
“God damn, Bush has made this country into absolute garbage.”
It seems that Bush bashing has become the new focal point for the left, since “Workers of the World – Unite!” fell out of fashion.
Not at the time they applied, in 1997. Also, the Karzai government doesn’t control much beyond Kabul, there’s Taliban influence in the outlying regions, so persecution is still likely to exist.
At the time the applied, ok. But they cannot claim persecution in 2005 from a gov’t that no longer exists.
As for the situation on the ground, I believe it has gotten better that Karzai is no longer just the “Mayor of Kabul”, but those border regions with Paksitan are iffy. Butt any personal safety issues the couple has seems more likely due to rough and tumble nature of Afghan society than anti-Hindu persecution.
It’s not primarily by the government.
Muslims are still being beaten in Afghanistan by Taliban remnants, let alone Hindus.
KXB –
Now when they filed in 1997 or whenever, did they know that the Taliban wouldn’t be around in 2005? Once you have filed for asylum, you cannot be changing the reasons !
Now would the outcome have been different, had some other country toppled the Taliban – and conditions in Afghansitan are the same, as they are today under US rule ???? Would be interesting to find out how many ppl from Afghanistan have been given asylum after US invasion.
Seeing as how several hundred thousand Afghan refugees that were living in camps in Pakistan and Iran have returned to their native land to rebuild their homes and their nation, why should this couple receive special consideration?
ok, so iraq has a new govt too, therefore, any iraqi who sought asylum here should go back bcuz as we know, things are running smoothly there too. I like how the US Govt can collect taxes from poor people and ship them out the next day too. Classy.
While tha Taliban were clearly anti-Hindu, can the same be said of the current Karzai government? Unlikely, considering that Karzai lived in India when he had no where else to go, and Abdullah Abdullah visits India so frequently you’d think he had a second home there. Making fear of religious persecution the main appeal of their asylum application was a misguided legal tactic.
yeah it looks like Karzai has things under control there pretty well. If you haven’t heard, the Taliban still controls certain portions of the country and has a ton of protection on the Paki border. So the govt therefore is not stable. There are many sympathizers still in Afghanistan and therefore, there safety is compromised. But I guess that cowboy of yours George Bush accompished his mission of finding OBL to make the world a safer place…oh wait, he hasn’t found him yet.
Afghanistan has always been a rather difficult place to live – it was never a modern nation state. Having enjoyed the comforts and protections that a modern society can provide, it is understandable that the couple wishes to stay. But avoiding economic hardship is generally not recognized as grounds for granting asylum.
I think this couple has made it clear that they came here not for money but for safety. If OBL was finished off (never gonna happen), if the govt was stable and had full control and a functioning economy, i would totally agree w/ you. The country is still in shambles, assassination attempts on the govt are frequent, and the next door neighbor is more than happy to see a return of the Taliban. That is not stability.
It seems that Bush bashing has become the new focal point for the left, since “Workers of the World – Unite!” fell out of fashion.
no, Bush bashing has become a focal point of the non-ignorant. Let’s see, no Osama Bin Laden, no WMD, 2 renegade nations, terrorist attacks here and now in Spain and London, beheaded journalists. Wow, what a great success this fool is.
KXB- Clearly, you need to brush up on your knowledge of US asylum law. An asylum applicant need only establish a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of one of five categories, including religion. Persecution may be established if an established government refuses or is unable to offer protection against persecution instigated by non-government groups, such as the Taliban. So this couple’s fears about the anti-Hindu zeal that may target them outside Kabul is cognizable under US law. The immigration judge here got it plain wrong, as do SO many immigration judges around the country. Don’t they have an appeal?
ok, so iraq has a new govt too, therefore, any iraqi who sought asylum here should go back bcuz as we know, things are running smoothly there too. I like how the US Govt can collect taxes from poor people and ship them out the next day too. Classy.
Why donÂ’t you try and keep the focus on the couple at hand? To compare this coupleÂ’s misfortune to an indictment of AmericaÂ’s war in Iraq is just sound and fury
yeah it looks like Karzai has things under control there pretty well. If you haven’t heard, the Taliban still controls certain portions of the country and has a ton of protection on the Paki border. So the govt therefore is not stable. There are many sympathizers still in Afghanistan and therefore, there safety is compromised. But I guess that cowboy of yours George Bush accompished his mission of finding OBL to make the world a safer place…oh wait, he hasn’t found him yet.
Perhaps you have not heard, but Karzai is extending his control every month. When a number of warlords wanted to keep their private militias, he forced them to disband them. Again, asylum decisions are normally focused on the likelihood for the applicant to face specific persecution. It is not dependent on the general social stability of the nation in question. Communist China is socially stable, yet occasionally Chinese do apply for asylum in the U.S., and are granted it, because they fear they will become the specific target of government action. This couple is worried about their general safety, as almost anyone from Afghanistan might be.
I think this couple has made it clear that they came here not for money but for safety. If OBL was finished off (never gonna happen), if the govt was stable and had full control and a functioning economy, i would totally agree w/ you. The country is still in shambles, assassination attempts on the govt are frequent, and the next door neighbor is more than happy to see a return of the Taliban. That is not stability.
A nationÂ’s stability is not the key determinant in deciding an asylum applicantÂ’s status. This couple may face threats to personal safety, but will it be more so than any other Afghan because they are Hindu?
no, Bush bashing has become a focal point of the non-ignorant. Let’s see, no Osama Bin Laden, no WMD, 2 renegade nations, terrorist attacks here and now in Spain and London, beheaded journalists. Wow, what a great success this fool is.
First off, capturing OBL is really not that important. We never captured Hitler either. Of course, to completely beat the Germans, we had to completely obliterate that nation, burn it and several million civilians to the ground, and rebuild it. Modern technology and tactics allows us the option of decapitating a regime, while leaving the rest of the nation alone. That is hardly something to complain about.
Where the U.S. can be the target of valid criticism is that rebuilding a nation is a task it did not plan for, unless it makes the decades long commitment to staying in the country as it did in German, Japan, and South Korea. Of course, if the U.S. did stay in Iraq and Afghanistan to even a fraction of that length to ensure stability, it would be criticized for overstaying its welcome. That there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11 is not due to mercy on Al QaedaÂ’s part, but through the steady dismemberment of global terrorist networks. Progress is not constant in any war. The fiercest fighting in the Pacific was in the spring of 1945, a few months before Japan surrendered.
We should continue to watch Bush closely, and rightly criticize him when he blunders (like disbanding the Iraqi army in 2003(. But rebuilding a tribal society (Afghanistan) and pacifying a former Mafia state (Iraq) are major tasks even in peaceful times.
from the Newsweek article:
KXB, your comparisons are misleading. During WWII the US fought nation-states, Germany and Japan. The current “War on Terror” is supposed to be against ‘terror’ and the idiocy of that statement along should be enough to see why this is failling miserably. Afghanistan and Iraq and basically being attack and rebuilt, destroyed and ‘helped’ at the same time. If we can’t decipher Bush’s plans, how the hell are they supposed to?
Returning to the case at hand, the arbitrary nature of the judge’s ruling (he denied asylum because the brother wasn’t there, and the that proved something illegal happend….how? On what evidence? On what legal grounds?), the silent removal of a 70 year old couple, with no contact allowed, false statements to their child, no explanation for their detention…given the ‘freedom and democracy’ we’re supposed to be spreading, (as if we own the concepts somehow)…the government’s actions look increasingly facist, no?
There are Afghani Hindus/Sikhs in India who fled the Taliban and earlier conflicts and are looking for Indian citizenship
If they arent going back why should this elderly harmless couple would want to go back. It doesnt matter where you went after getting out.
Given the obvious risk of religious persecution in present-day Afghanistan (anyone who disputes this hasn’t read the papers lately), their connections with the US and with US citizens, their age, and the hardship involved in sending them back, their case is definitely going to be granted on appeal. That is the way the law is right now.
Establishing fear of persecution in Afghanistan has got to be on the easiest legal assignments ever. People routinely get asylum from much more stable countries.
Yes, that is the point.
Why donÂ’t you try and keep the focus on the couple at hand? To compare this coupleÂ’s misfortune to an indictment of AmericaÂ’s war in Iraq is just sound and fury
the focus is on the couple. you insinuated in your earlier post that Karzai’s govt had things under control when that is clearly not the case. I was pointing out that it would be fallacious to send them back just as it would be should an Iraqi family be sent back to a country w/ a ‘new govt’….new govt does not equal good govt that can ensure the rights of its people.
capturing OBL is really not that important
i seem to think it might be a bit important…if they catch the head of the organization it would/should strike sufficient fear in the followers that no one is safe and that the US will back up what it says. It also would serve as an enduring trophy that the US was right in going after him and that it’s aims are not the natural gas fields and oil, but to avenge a crime. Big Bad Bush even said so, that he guaranteed he would get him. And then the message changed all the way down to this now, ‘he’s not important’. I bet those poor people who dies in NYC and Washington don’t feel that way. And in the same regard, this unfortunate couple feels unsafe in a country where Osama Bin Laden and his followers are still highly feared and respected and could still overthrow the puppet regime Karzai govt at any time.
This is a correlation vs. casuation fallacy, these attacks take time to plan. Eight years passed between the WTC truck bomb in ’93 and the twin towers attack. A-Q’s MO has not been quick hits on the same country in year-long intervals.
I have no doubt we’re better off now, but how much better off is hard to gauge yet.
Crediting it all to Bush is a uniqueness fallacy. Any president would have tightened security after 9/11. The key is whether this president’s specific policies and/or innovations are better or worse than the usual response to an act of war.
mmm…I don’t know that we’re better off now Manish. In my opinion, we’re looking at an escalating number of attacks…Of the ways in which we could’ve helped people in Iraq and Afghanistan, this stupid War of Terror is (again, just my opinion) the worst. I think it’s driven the ignorant, the lost, and the hopeless, right into the welcoming arms of Al Queda nihilists..giving them more suicidal cannon fodder.
As a response to an Act of War, Bush’s policies are clearly self-serving at best, demented at worst, since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. In taking down the Taliban, Bush set a precedent, claiming that any government that “sponsored” terrorists was as culpable as the group for its crimes. But, it don’t think it can work that way..you can’t fight terrorism as you would another country. You can’t root it out and destroy it because it stays invisible and morphs from one tactic to another, one person to another, as long as more people become vested in its cause.
This is a correlation vs. casuation fallacy, these attacks take time to plan. Eight years passed between the WTC truck bomb in ’93 and the twin towers attack. A-Q’s MO has not been quick hits on the same country in year-long intervals.
True – but AQ has changed its MO substantially since they were routed from their safe haven of Afghanistan. Going by the “crude calculus of terrorism” (a phrase from The Economist) – let’s take a macabre look at AQ’s attacks and the results:
9/11 – 3000 dead. An economy pushed into recession. Stock markets closed for almost a week. Airlines nearly destroyed. 10% of NYC’s office space is gone.
Bali – 200 dead, the tourism industry in SE Asia is shut down for almost a year, throwing thousands out of work. Another hit on the aviation sector. Madrid – 200 dead. Spain withdraws its troops from Iraq. But little economic impact
London – 40 dead. But the markets stayed open. Planes still flew. No talk of withdrawal from Iraq. There was a greater economic impact from an IRA bombing in the mid 90’s in the City, which cost nearly $1 billion in damages.
AQ cannot plan a large scale assault anymore.
AQ’s targeting has changed too. They used to target buildings of symbolic significance – American embassies, naval vessels, the Twin Towers the Pentagon. But, since security has been tightened in those areas – AQ has switched to targeted everyday civilian areas – notably mass transit.
“I have no doubt we’re better off now, but how much better off is hard to gauge yet. Crediting it all to Bush is a uniqueness fallacy. Any president would have tightened security after 9/11. The key is whether this president’s specific policies and/or innovations are better or worse than the usual response to an act of war.”
I wouldnÂ’t credit it all to Bush either (although many of his critics will blame him for just about everything, as some are already doing with todayÂ’s attacks). As for whether Afghanistan or Iraq are better off. I think the women of Afghanistan have no desire to be treated like beasts of burden again, and whipped in public. The million plus refugees that were living in Pakistan and Iran for over a decade have a chance to rebuild their nation. The Shia majority of Iraq can now have a say in their government and celebrate their holidays, the Kurds are preparing to gather evidence against those who gassed them.
To use the WWII comparison again – what was life like in Germany and Japan in 1949? Unemployment was epidemic. Economic activity was anemic. And a new ideology was winning adherents, with its rejections of Western liberalism. They believed that having defeated Nazism, they could now defeat liberal democracy, much as Islamists believe having defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan, they can repeat the result against the U.S. And soon the world would be engulfed in a war on the Korean peninsula, that many felt was a distraction from the task of rebuilding Europe and Japan. By those standards, there is reason to be hopeful in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Since your proposition can’t be disproved (unless there is such an attack) and needs significantly more, stronger, and less selective evidence to be supported than what you’ve offered, I’m left having trouble buying into your optimism about this for a number of reasons:
1) The United States government has handed Al Qaeda and other Islamist fundamentalists their best recruiting tool in a generation in the form of the Iraq War–even if you think the war was helpful (as a show of force or eliminating a potential threat or whatever), it did not address the primary sources of emotional, cultural, or financial support for Islamist terrorism. Plus there’s Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc.
2) Al Qaeda is not equivalent to selectively “>Islamist terrorism or state-sponsored violence. It would hardly be comforting to see the dismantling of Al Qaeda’s capability (let alone the organization) using tactics that lead to Pakistan’s (or the former USSR’s) nuclear weapons falling into the hands of their Islamists or Iraq descending into civil war and destabilizing the region or many other scenarios that might be playing out right now. IMO, the escalation in this so-called “war” will gradually turn it into a real war of some kind or another (just like invading Iraq in the name of fighting terror actually made it a center of jihadi activity, which it wasn’t before.). Maybe the Iraq war is just that…or the beginning of it anyway.
3) The government of the United States, which is leading and defining the “war on terror” and also is the primary possessor and employer of force in the world today, doesn’t know what the f#ck it’s doing economically, politically, or militarily. You can justify this by looking at the U.S. debt and tax policy, the fixation on Social Security’s demographic issues when Medicare funding is a greater concern (largely as a result of the prescription benefit passed in the past few years, apparently), economists’ concerns about what will happen if Asian banks decide to pull in some of the money they’re currently lending out to prop up the U.S. economy, the gross mismanagement of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (if I had told you in early 2002 that the Taliban would still be active and more pertinently that Afghanistan would essentially be chaotic, uncontrolled, and have Osama Bin Laden running around in or near it somewhere, how would you have felt? or if I told you in March 2003 that the US Secretary of Defense would be telling you today that the insurgency in Iraq will likely last years into the future?)
Regardless of whether you like Bush or his tone or whatever, he has a clear track record of management incompetence up to and through the decision to invade Iraq (I could buy an argument that he’s been somewhat chastened since then, but I don’t think that’s substantially changed things enough). You could even just go by the fact that, as far as I know, they still don’t protect ports adequately despite that there have been repeated and constant complaints about this from any number of people interested in essentially the same ends as them (e.g. Paul Krugman–who’s a critic, but has the same essential interests as the people who make up the Administration).
4) While some Middle Eastern countries are making limited steps towards opening up discourse in their countries (like Kuwait and Egypt and even Saudi), that’s a long process, and will probably lead to backlash before Islamists actually buy into the system the way they have in Turkey. Overall, I think it’s safe to say that the region is still characterized by autocracy, still employs such methods as the torture that helped produce such fine people as this guy and his followers. It’s probably not helpful the U.S. continues to facilitates or legitimizes that torture (look up extraordinary rendition) and support those regimes even as it allegedly promotes freedom.
5) All this points to how the basic economic and geopolitical relationships mostly remain in place (and quite possibly have gotten worse)–the US and other industrialized countries continue to depend on energy sources from autocratic regimes in the Middle East (the Iraq War having made this even more the case) with no leadership in the US from the administration on energy conservation, real alternative fuel sources (their idea of an alternative fuel source is a pro-American iraqi government pumping out oil); half-broken states and autocracies continue to flourish in the region; the Saudi government and others continue to sponsor or be complicit in promoting interpretations of Islam that Islamist terrorists depend on; Israel and Palestinians continue to be at odds (althogh arafat’s passing and replacement probably has improved things somewhat, though the wall has not), which gives Islamists and the autocratic societies that produce them a convenient scapegoat to mobilize around; and the United States governemnt continues to basically maintain the same support for autocracy that it did before–most notably in Saudi Arabia.
It would be a lot to ask for all this to have changed, but it wouldn’t be for the Administration to recognize that this is what’s going on and react accordingly (e.g. perhaps by disappointing their oil company friends once in a while or looking a little more critically at how social change and democracy actually might take root in different places–including in the United States and Iran).
Perhaps the only thing that’s significantly changed, attitudewise, is that the United States now takes a stronger stand against state sponsorship of terrorism in principle–which it probably didn’t need to do–and it upped the level of antagonism with particular states and I suppose it showed that it wasn’t “soft”, but, as you can see above, I think there might have been more intelligent approaches to trying to solve the problem of Islamist terrorism.
For all these reasons and more, WWII isn’t comparable to the present day, and it’s ludicrous to try to combat private-sector Islamist terrorism on the basis of some analogy to German, Japanese, or Italian state fascism. They’re just very different things propped up by very different forces and histories. Given that the people runnign the U.S. government supposedly understand the private sector so well and allegedly believe in what people are capable of outside of government assistance, I find it shocking that they wouldn’t have grasped this very basic idea about the nature of this problem.
p.s. it’s overly simplistic if not flat out wrong to say that Spain withdrew its troops from Iraq because of the Madrid attack; Spain withdrew its troops because its rightist government decided to mess around with the public about what the attacks were about shortly before a close election, on top of having already led the public into a highly unpopular war–when the opposition won, the new prime minister withdrew the Spanish troops with widespread public support, having never supported the war in the first place and having pledged during the campaign to withdraw the troops.