The Research at Chicago site is currently featuring a video interview with Maria Woltjen, Director of the Immigrant Children's Advocacy Project, one of the Law School's four highly-regarded legal clinics.
The Immigrant Children's Advocacy Project is a human service and policy advocacy program dedicated to advocating for the best interests of immigrant and refugee children who are alone in the United States. Through the Immigrant Children's Advocacy Project, law students and bilingual volunteers are trained to serve as Advocates -- to get to know the children, help sort out their stories and help identify their eligibility for asylum or special protective visas. The video is embedded below, and if you'd like to learn more about the Project you read this recent article from the The University of Chicago Magazine or this 2006 article from the University of Chicago Chronicle.
I hope there are some "teachable moments" so that the young U of C students can learn about not suborning perjury as attorneys. Lord knows 99% of these asylum seekers are just here for the same reason everyone else is: to get rich in America compared to their impoverished homelands. No one's oppressed. Where are these kids from? North Korea? Or such oppressive lands as Brazil, Mexico, Ukraine, and Mali? It's a joke, and I hope that the honest U of C studnets remember that their honor is more important than letting in the umpteenth third world false asylum seeker.
Posted by: Roach | March 22, 2008 at 04:01 PM
I served as an advocate here. I spent my time piecing together stories of the children, many of whom are under 13 years old.
That 99% of these children come "to get rich in America" is ridiculous. Did you watch the part of the video explaining reasons children end up here alone and undocumented? It's accurate in my experience.
Have you been to any of the countries you mentioned? No one's oppressed? Your response is a joke.
Posted by: anonymous | March 22, 2008 at 11:09 PM
The third world sucks and contains 4.5 billion people. Most of their lives are unimaginably worse compared to ours. We can't and shouldn't take them all in because it would destroy our way of life and the way of life of our children. We owe that too ourselves and to our posterity.
People are victims of all kinds of crimes everywhere; they should not therefore get asylum. It's a question of political persecution. And I've been to 2/4 of those countries--Mexico (4X), Ukraine (1X)-and the fact I'd visit them is pretty much all you need to know about whether or not they're oppressive.
The asylum system and the immigrant-lawyer-industrial-complex, complete with the extensive EOIR review process, is a complete joke and a make-work gig for lawyers. At a bar function, I heard a "heartfelt" testimony about a woman who got asylum because she was subject to domestic violence in Guatemala by her husband. I'm sure she's safe now, because lord knows working class Hispanic immigrants in the US never experience domestic violence. It's an insult to reason that any of these people are given asylum for ordinary life problems, when it's obvious they just want to live off the milk and honey that we and our ancestors created here in the US without the backwards and dynsfunctional cultural attitudes of the Third Worlders.
Posted by: Roach | March 23, 2008 at 11:53 AM
All I can say that after reading the first and third comments is that it saddens me to think there are supposedly intelligent people who believe that load of crap.
"when it's obvious they just want to live off the milk and honey that we and our ancestors created here in the US without the backwards and dysfunctional cultural attitudes of the Third Worlders."
If I can ask a simple question, why did your ancestors come here? If life was the same here as it was there why did they make the trip? I could go on but to argue with someone who thinks as you do is pointless.
Posted by: Peter | February 24, 2009 at 04:51 PM