Who’s Guarding Who?

This year the city of Boston finds itself immersed in an ongoing dialogue on city-wide violence. While the overall rate of shootings has decreased 23% by the end of this week, homicides have increased for this time of year at 14, as opposed the same time last year which was 10.

At the University of Massachusetts Boston, the William Monroe Trotter Institute for African American Studies organized a city-wide dialogue several days ago with community members, university researchers, law enforcers, and several city officials to discuss the state of crime in certain Boston neighborhoods and the future of crime prevention.

Just today the Boston Globe released an article discussing what seems to be a new alternative to fighting crime. Community members, frustrated by law enforcers response time, and overall resources are facing a new method of crime prevention introduced by a group called the “Guardian Angels.”

According to their website www.guardianangels.org their mission is

“To safeguard neighborhoods, schools, and cyberspace from crime and violence, through partnerships with educators, corporations, and community leaders, via programs that heighten risk awareness, foster character development, provide peaceful solutions, and empower individuals, especially our youth, to lead positive, productive, contributing lives.”

Founding member Curtis Sliwa of Guardian Angels has re-introduced this program to the Boston area to help enforce crime prevention.

“We are here to help, not to hurt,” he said at a gathering organized by the Rev. Bruce Wall, pastor of Global Ministries Christian Church in Codman Square. “We carry no weapons. . . . We’re just average citizens just like all of you.”

Guardian Angel members enter neighborhoods and merely act as crime deterrents through their presence. They are unarmed, but armed with red berets and jackets “red beret speaks the language of commitment to building role models for the real world,” alleges their safety patrol section on their website.

But many city and community members worry just what these red beret members are willing to do, and can do in their communities. His group aims to train a group of racially targeted African Americans from Washington D.C. in the ways of non-violent crime combattancy.

“Sliwa said he has recruited eight volunteers from Washington, D.C., most of them African-American, and all of them used to confronting street crime. They will go home once Sliwa has trained what he hopes will be dozens of Boston volunteers. Sliwa said he hopes to ultimately have about 60 volunteers patrolling Roxbury, Mattapan, Dorchester, and Jamaica Plain “to create a new movement in the street to counteract what the gangs are doing.”

While the effort is commendable in its practical message, there are additional issues to consider. The racial composition of the beret toting Guardian Angels, is racially motivated. While understandably it makes no sense to train many white folks to patrol predominantly neighborhoods of color, it becomes another issue of neighborhood colonialism where outside organizations wield a heavy hand on community issues which are either foreign or contextual city by city.

But this isn’t the first time Boston has seen the work of the Guardian Angels. In fact, they made their presence from 1981-1992, but due to various administrative issues, “violent episodes, and growing resentment from residents,” they were forced to disband the Boston chapter.

Their initial 200 person membership patrolled the Mission Hill, Roxbury and South End neighborhoods.

While many community members are at the end of their rope, and are willing to give any new crime prevention method a try, Northeastern University Criminologist Jack McDevitt told the Boston Globe that organizations such as the Guardian Angels may in fact work against rather than with local law enforcers, and enact what he thinks is their own martial law.
“The commissioner is probably reacting to police chiefs around the country who feel they are more vigilantes than they are help,” he said.”They may in fact be exacerbating problems the police are dealing with.”

A past history of failure, and community resentment illustrates the contextual nature behind crime activity from community to community. Crime is not an equation, nor can it be solved by outside organizations unless they work with community members to understand the political backdrop in which they enter and work to develop a community strategy together. The Guardian Angels seems to essentialize crime not only in the US but also in their international offices in the UK and more recently in Japan.

Crime prevention is a laudable goal for any large city. City-wide dialogues like the recent community gathering at the University of Massachusetts Boston seems to be a first step in understanding just as a community the issues they face, and the resources they have to enact positive change. Guardian Angels represents a positive step toward a national call where discussing crime prevention is a priority. I hate to make the connection, but it was the first thing that came to mind when I read the Globe article, but I think of the Minutemen policing the Mexican-American border. They have isolated the issue of immigration, essentialized the root problem and are acting on their own accord to police communities of color, and the entrance of people of color in this country. I am acknowledging that both are completely different entities to be analyzed in very different ways. But there is a similar power structure of colonialism involved in both-The underlying colonial views that Mexicans are not only illegal immigrants but inferior people and do not deserve the same rights as families in the U.S. , and the colonialized idea that communities of color plagued with increased criminal activity can be solved through essentialized equations by non-community members with no understanding of the contextual community issues.

For more information on the Guardian Angels go to The Boston Globe’s Article or see the Guardian Angel’s website

Indian American Transracial Adoptee Faces Deportation for Criminal Record

Adoptee, Felon fighting deportation to India

Samuel Jonathan Schultz, a legal resident of the United States, fears the worst if he is sent back to India, a country he left at age 3 when he was adopted by a West Valley City woman.
The 25-year-old knows little about the nation of his birth, speaks only English and believes he The lawyers, J. Christopher Keen and Edward Carter, say in court would have to live on the streets there, according to court documents. As a Christian in general, and a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in particular, he believes he will be targeted for persecution.
But immigration authorities are unconvinced. Based on his two felony car-theft-related convictions, the federal government wants to send him packing to one of the world’s poorest nations.
On Wednesday, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals that ordered him removed from the country.
The Denver-based 10th Circuit agreed that Schultz’s criminal record makes him ineligible for cancellation of the deportation order. In addition, the court said Schultz has failed to show a likelihood that he would be tortured in India based on his faith, a basis to get asylum.
Schultz, who was released from custody last year, and his mother could not be reached for comment. His lawyers declined to discuss the case.

The lawyers, J. Christopher Keen and Edward Carter, say in court documents that Schultz is being kicked out of the United States for crimes that essentially amounted to joy riding. Government attorneys, however, describe the offenses as much more serious.
If Schultz had pursued U.S. citizenship, the outcome might have been different. But 20 years ago, his adoptive mother, Patricia Schultz, lacked the money and knowledge of all the ramifications to complete the application process on his behalf.
Schultz came to the United States in July 1985 with his two older brothers and an older sister, all of whom had been adopted by the woman. The single mother, who already had two other adoptive Indian children, later married a man with two sons.
According to the government’s court brief, Samuel Schultz has a juvenile record of theft offenses and engaged in altercations as a teen with his stepfather that occasionally required police intervention.
Then in 2000, he was arrested while driving home in a stolen vehicle. The then-18-year-old said the car had been stolen by an acquaintance and he was returning it to where the friend had left it, across the street from the Schultz house.
Schultz pleaded guilty to receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle, was given a suspended sentence of up to five years in prison and was placed on three years’ probation.
Less than a year later, in January 2001, he was stopped for speeding and West Valley police officers discovered the vehicle he was driving had been stolen the previous day. He pleaded guilty to receiving a stolen vehicle and was sentenced to one to 15 years.
Schultz came to the attention of immigration authorities during a screening at Utah State Prison in Draper for noncitizen offenders. They initiated removal proceedings in March 2002.
Since then, Schultz has been fighting to stay in the United States but has lost at every level.
Immigration Judge James Vandello ruled in 2005 that there was nothing in the law allowing him to reverse the deportation order. In addition, the criminal convictions make Schultz ineligible for asylum, the judge said. Besides, Schultz has not shown a reasonable possibility of mistreatment or torture based on his religion, he said. “He has not shown that people of the Mormon faith are routinely persecuted by the government or people operating outside the government,” Vandello stated in his ruling. “There are random acts of persecution of Christians and also of other religions, as far as that goes, even the majority religions on occasion.”
Despite ruling against Schultz, Vandello expressed some concern about some aspects of the law that allows the government to deport legal residents.
In his ruling, he noted that cases of such residents being deported because of felony convictions are becoming more common. He said the only way for Schultz to stay would be to get permission to withdraw his guilty pleas so he could fight the criminal charges or to persuade Congress to pass a private bill on his behalf. Such a bill would be “a very difficult and arduous process,” he said.
“It presents a very serious humanitarian situation when somebody has to be deported to a country he knows nothing about, which is quite the case here.”

—————————————–

Well here we have an example of where adoption meets immigration. Schultz is facing possible deportation to India due to his adoptive parent’s not getting him citizenship. It will be interesting to see how this case plays out. His adoptive mother is white, and his case is quite unique in that he is Mormon, speaks only English and may know nothing about Indian culture. If this case goes to the supreme court and he is not deported, I think we’ll get a political statement as to how international transracial adoptees are viewed in America. This if anything says a lot about what is defined as immigration, and which immigrants’ rights are protected.

Kristina Wong vs Kenneth Eng

Forgot about this link but I remembered when I saw an advertisement that Kristina Wong is performing near by. If you’ve never heard of Kristina Wong, I really suggest you familiarize yourself with her. She’s an Asian American Political activist performer.

Here’s her regular website… Kristina Wong

Here’s where the fun begins – I’m sure you’ve all heard about the whole controversy Kenneth Eng started with his column in Asian Week entitled “Why I hate Blacks.” If you’re not familiar with Kenneth Eng, check out his interview on fox. But first, here is Kristina Wong’s rebuttle. If it’s not as funny on youtube, I understand…You’ll just have to see her in person to appreciate her work.

Some New Adoption Links

So I’ve been sort off the adoption headlines lately and more about searching for helpful resources for adoptees. If you haven’t already checked out the adoptee blogs I have listed on the side please do. Many of these adoptees have a lot of great things to say. But as far as the issues go, don’t worry I’ll be back with more posts than you can handle.

Recently I was reminded of an adoptee I met at a book discussion and an event that Boston Korean Adoptees Inc (an organization I am involved with) sponsored. It was a book talk from contributers to Outsiders Within, which if you haven’t read, please do (The easiest way to check it out is by checking out Jane Jeong Trenka’s Blog listed on the side at Language of Blood. But in any event you should check out Anh Dao Kolbe. An incredible photographer and all around great person. I had the pleasure of meeting her and seeing some of her work. You can check out her photography website at ADK Photography

Next I stumbled upon a new book on transracial adoption. It’s called The Stork Market. Here’s an excerpt about the book that I found on their website. I haven’t read the book myself so any comments from people who may have read it are warmly welcomed. For more information please check out their website Advocate Publications.

——————————————————————————————-

THE STORK MARKET is FOR:

Anyone personally touched by adoption, or who knows someone who is
Anyone planning or considering adoption in their lives, or the lives of a love done
Social workers, attorneys, adoption facilitators and anyone working in the field of adoption
Teachers, psychologists, therapists, counselors who come in contact with adoptees, adoptive mothers and mothers who have relinquished for adoption
The general public, tax payers
Anyone interested in child protection and family preservation

The Stork Market is an in-depth examination of the corruption in the adoption industry: the fine line between black and gray market adoption; scams, coercion and exploitation in a market based on supply and demand with prices based on quality (i.e. age, skin color) of the merchandise and set as high as ‘desperate’ consumers are willing to pay.

The Stork Market exposes international trafficking where children are a commodity bought and sold to the highest bidders, including pedophiles.

The Stork Market is extensively researched, documented and including interviews with the top adoption experts. The Stork Market asks if adoption can be fixed – the money aspect removed and government controls and regulations put in place – or abolished in favor of permanent guardianship, or informal adoption that does not involve the issuance of a falsified birth certificate present in current adoption to fortify myths of replicating creation.

The Stork Market foreword is by Evelyn Robinson, from Australia, who brings with her an International perspective.

The Stork Market goes further and is more current than Riben’s groundbreaking, award-winning expose of the adoption industry, “shedding light on…The Dark Side of Adoption” (1988) which was excerpted in Social Issues Review Series, Utne Reader and Microcosm USA. The Stork Market reveals, for the first time in print, Riben’s role in the notorious Joel Steinberg murder case.

————————————————————————

And now, on a more somber note I want to talk about the Twice Lost, Never Forgotten Adoption Kinship Memorial Wall.
“a place to memorialize and remember those separated in by adoption, who have left this earthly life.”

It’s a hard issue to grapple with and it may be hard for you to look at this site (I know it was for me). But I think it is publicizing a side of adoption that is not necessarily out there, or that is discussed (even within adoptee circles). It’s not the most uplifting topic, but does shine light on not only the tragedies of adoption, but also the experience that many transracial Korean adoptees share when they learn that a member of their birth family is no longer alive. I’ve heard these stories from adoptees, and it’s a hard issue to cope with.

How does one cope with learning for the first time of a birth parent’s existence while also mourning their passing?

In Third Space

I think a lot of adoptees feel this Third Space of identity. Adoptees tend to always be cast as not being enough of this or that-caught in the middle not being able to choose which aspect of their identity means more to them. But I think we need to stop thinking in this way. Our identity exists in a Third Space-it’s not half of one and half of another. We just ARE. And I think empowering ourselves to acknowledge that there is this Third Space where we don’t necessarily have to think about who we’re not enough of, and more about who we are is important. All this dialogue all because of this new Adoptee publication I just found online.

Appropriately, it’s called “In Third Space.” I wish they had a print version because I think it’s a great resource to have for the adoptee community. I’m also impressed because Kim Park Nelson and Anh Dao Kolbe (who are contributers to the book Outsiders within) are featured in it (and I met them and they are so great). Take a peek, and enjoy.

I know this is sort of a cheat post so I’ll be back later today with a post with a little more KAD substance! Be sure to check in later.

Immigration Debate with a Transracial/Transnational Adoptee’s Analysis

In this ongoing controversy over immigration it’s sometimes hard to find elected officials pro-citizenship for illegal immigrants. It’s a complex issue and I will analyze it from a transracial adoptee’s perspective of course.

Immigration reform today means border control-Policing the border through legal channels such as ICE, and through illegal channels such as the Minutemen on the Mexican-American border.

While this immigration debate rages on, quietly, in the background are transracial, international adoptees being brought into this country through legal as well as illegal channels without any debate over our immigrant status or legitimacy. We are naturalized citizens of this country. We came to this country as part of a transracial family where our parents are white. This privilege should be clear enough to most. But think of it this way. We as adoptees are part of globalized capitalism. While we may not necessarily want to see the political ramifications behind having dollar signs attached to our backs, this is still a political statement-and adoption policy has made it very easy for us to come to this country into the arms of white parents. What I’m trying to ask is, what is the difference between us as immigrants coming from outside the US that allows us easier access to naturalization than immigrant families of color? Why is it that we are so easily accepted politically into this country? There is certainly no complaint from either side of the aisle that we are taking away jobs…We are adopted into white privilege. While we don’t necessarily benefit from it racially, we benefit in the form of class privilege-the fact remains that as transracial international adoptees we are not even considered immigrants. I think it’s really important to make this distinction. While many would deny any notion of “ownership” I think we need to ask ourselves the hard questions about how the dollar sign DOES affect our identity as easily accepted citizens in the US.

I’ve spoke with some transnational, transracial adoptees who refuse to consider this logic when assessing the immigration debate today. These are questions that need to be asked, and need to be used to address the power structure in this country that allows babies of color who are adopted into white families, not only a full array of class privileges and resources, but more importantly, how immigrant families of color enter this country wanting a better life for themselves and their family (just as our adopted parents are looking to provide us) and are unable to get the jobs, access to social services/resources, insurance, healthcare and much much more which we as adult adoptees now take for granted. While we may have it easy as adoptees who speak perfect English, and who have class privileges and resources to overcome hardships that we may face in our futures, we must take a firm stance on immigration. This country was built on Native Indian lands, and was used to push the boundaries to steal territory from Mexico such as Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and parts of California. By virtue of these founding principles, ironically white Americans are immigrants, and Native Indians and Latinos (more relevantly, Mexicans) are the native peoples. Adoptees need to see this and understand that we play an important role not only as privileged Asian Americans but also as privileged immigrants.

KAD Anthology Looking for Submissions

I got a message on facebook about a new KAD Anthology that is soliciting submissions at this time. I’ll attach the contact and information about it below.

To: Korean American Adoptees
Subject: Asian American Adoptee Anthology
Message: This comes from our own Joey Campbell. For those of you who don’t check the wall very often, be sure to take a look!

Call for Submissions
Asian American Adoptee anthology

Each and every Asian American Adoptee has a different story. However, we all have one thing in common and that’s the need to be heard. I am searching for a collection of essays, memoirs, and poems written by Asian American Adoptees. This anthology will reveal various aspects of adoption, serve as a link between Asian American Adoptees, an encouraging guide for many who face the long and hard road to discovering and accepting identity, and an insightful read for adoptive parents. Submissions will be collected for the intention of publishing a book.

Submission deadline: July 1, 2007

Mail submissions to:
Ms. JL Campbell
9979 Owenton Road
Frankfort, KY

Or e-mail submissions to:
Joohlee22@gmail.com

Please include your name, address, telephone number, e-mail address, and a stamped, self-addressed envelope for either return of work or response from editor. Please make sure to include enough postage for return of manuscript (if that is desired). Submissions should be legible.

Visit: http://www.xanga.com/koreanamericanadoptee

Angelina Jolie is…. THE WOMB RAIDER

I can’t really say much more than this is pretty hilarious. Thanks for the headsup on Harlows Monkey

Angelina Jolie is… THE WOMB RAIDER

Korean Adoptees Worldwide

I just wanted to make a quick little pitch for any of you who are interested in staying up to date with Korean Adoptee news, and perspectives worldwide-check out the Korean Adoptees Worldwide Listserv on yahoo. It’s a really great way to stay informed while also being able to communicate back and forth with other KADs not just in the U.S. but across the world since we KADs are EVERYWHERE these days. Well check it out, thanks to Sunny Jo for maintaining it!

http://www.koreanadoptees.net

Same-sex couples allowed adoption in 6 counties of NH

N.H. House OKs adoption law change
By Associated Press

CONCORD, N.H. — The state House voted yesterday to allow unmarried adults — including gay couples — to adopt children together.

State law allows children to be adopted by married couples or single adults. Gay individuals can adopt, but same-sex couples can adopt in only six of the state’s 10 counties because probate judges interpret the law differently.

The 234-127 vote sent the bill to the Senate.

Representative Jayne Spaulding said current law is “neither fair nor just” because some courts allow the adoptions while others don’t. The Bedford Republican said the bill is needed to correct an ambiguity.

“This bill is not about whether gays or lesbians should be allowed to adopt,” said Spaulding, who noted a ban on gays adopting was lifted in 1999.

Not just gay couples would be affected, she added. A brother and sister might want to adopt a younger sibling if their parents were dead, she said.

Representative Dan Itse, a Fremont Republican, objected that the bill would allow same-sex couples to adopt as a couple — a debate the House will have when it considers pending bills to allow civil unions and same-sex marriage. Itse predicted the House will approve one of the bills and make the adoption bill unnecessary.

Itse also pointed out that unmarried couples can split up without getting divorced, which means there is no court oversight of the child’s welfare.

***

For quite some time since anyone can remember adoption has not only been a controversial issue on face value, but has also held some charged opinions regarding same-sex marriage. Psychologists and conservative individuals see not only same sex marriage as a threat to the institution of the “American heterosexual family,” but attempt to assert that their children will be sexually abused, and pushed into lives in the LGBTIQ community. Their information is based on false pretenses, and homophobic foundations through institutions such as religion. The actual statistics do not show any more sexual abuse in same sex couples than heterosexual couples.

The American institution of “the family” is grounded on the role of parenting. Families are not considered legitimate unless offspring (biological, or adopted) children are part of the equation. This flagrant denial of same sex couples of adopting children attempts to continue to challenge and supplement a conservative agenda to cripple the legitimacy and legality of same sex marriage. By asserting that same sex couples are “atypical” and that they can potentially “contaminate” their adopted children with homosexuality is a conservative political wedge that is being driven deep into the American consciousness as a way to preserve the sacred definition of the family, while stigmatizing the LGBTIQ community’s right to rear children. If child rearing itself becomes the defining factor in institutionalizing a family, by denying same sex couples adoption it hinders their acceptance and institutionalization as a legitimate “American Family.”

As same sex marriage begins to gain momentum in the legislature across the country, I believe conservatives realize they need to have a two-prong attack on same sex marriage. While limiting same sex marriage is one route to take, they have also sought additional methods to delegitimize families through political provisions on adoption. When those methods fail on states such as Massachusetts, they look to channel this same political agenda through adoption which becomes the cornerstone in establishing a legitimate family. This enables those who wield influence and political clout on the adoption industry the power of deciding who is allowed to have families in the U.S.