One Little Victory

Most of the news we’ve recently been hearing about immigration in the United States has been bad, but every now and then a bit of good news emerges. Here’s an instance of the latter.

About a year ago, a journalist told me the story of a young Pakistani immigrant in a terrible situation, asking me to write a letter of support that might help her get out of it. I contacted the person in question, heard her out, sat down to write her a letter of support, and sent it off to her lawyer. A few weeks ago, the woman told me that her application to remain in the United States had been accepted, and the orders to deport her had been lifted. With her permission, I’ve reproduced the letter I wrote for her, one of several she used to make her case to the immigration authorities. In the interests of privacy, I’ve changed her name. 

As I see it, the case demonstrates the complexity (or alternatively, the vacuity) of the idea of “following the law” in immigration cases. Absent a substantive, non-positivist conception of justice, the prescription to “follow the law” is as consistent with deporting an immigrant as it is with allowing her to stay. Introduce a substantive conception of justice, and you introduce the considerations that give the law meaning, while giving legal decisions their point. Justice obviously demanded allowing Sarah Ibrahim to stay in the United States, and thankfully, the law allowed it as well. So it appears that she’ll stay. I’m happy to have made a small contribution to the outcome. 


October 8, 2016

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Re: Letter of Support for Sarah Ibrahim

To whom it may concern:

I am an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Felician University in Lodi, New Jersey, where I direct the Pre-Law Program as well as the Institute for Ethics and Public Affairs, and co-chair the University’s Committee on Leadership and Social Justice. I’m also a Visiting Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at Al Quds University in Abu Dis, Palestine, where I spend my summers, and have guest-taught classes at Forman Christian College and University in Lahore, Pakistan. My academic area of specialization is ethics; my area of competence is political philosophy. I hold a B.A. in Politics from Princeton University (1991), and an M.A. and Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Notre Dame (2002, 2008).

I am a first-generation Pakistani with extensive family and social contacts in Pakistan. I’ve visited the country five times, most recently in 2012.  My family, like Ms. Ibrahim’s, is from northeastern Punjab; indeed, my family is prominent in the government of that province, and in the national government.[1] Though most of my family is based in the city of Lahore, I have visited Murree, Ms. Ibrahim’s hometown, and have family in Islamabad nearby. In any case, I’m personally familiar with the culture to which, in the absence of a waiver, Ms. Ibrahim would be obliged to return.

Like Ms. Ibrahim, I was born in a conservative Pakistani-Muslim family but have now adopted a relatively secular lifestyle. Like her, I have been on the receiving end of disapproval and sanctions for my lifestyle choices, most notably for my choice of life-partner. Unlike her, however, I am male, and an American citizen, born in New Jersey, so that the disapproval and sanctions I’ve faced have been relatively mild. As I suggest below, Ms. Ibrahim’s gender and citizenship status make a significant difference in understanding the very different situation she faces.

Students of moral philosophy are familiar with the dilemmas that arise from the need to observe two conflicting ethical requirements. Faced with two such requirements, both of them morally significant, the conscientious person is forced to choose between them. Such a person is typically advised to choose the requirement that either leads to the least-bad consequences, or the one that honors the most weighty of the competing moral values.

In the present case, Ms. Ibrahim faces a conflict between honoring her legal obligation to return to Pakistan, and avoiding the very real threat of death or bodily harm that may arise from her return. As a professional ethicist, it seems clear to me that violation of the J-1 requirement, though a bad consequence, is a milder one than the risk of serious harm or death. Likewise, it seems to me that while compliance with immigration law is a moral value, the preservation of innocent life lies higher in the scale of moral values than compliance with that law. So if we grant that Ms. Ibrahim faces the real risk of death or bodily harm upon her return to Pakistan, it seems clear that that consideration ought to be uppermost in any deliberations about her immigration status.

The question then seems to be a factual one: is her life on the line if she returns? I think it is. To put the point in a conservative way: it would be reckless to gamble on her safety by demanding her return.

It is an established principle of Islamic law that a Muslim woman is obliged to marry a Muslim man.  She can under no circumstances marry a non-Muslim. If she somehow were to find herself in a romantic relationship with a non-Muslim man—itself a situation either frowned on or proscribed—she has only two alternatives. She cannot continue the relationship in an unmarried state. She must therefore either break off the relationship, or induce the man to convert to Islam. Failing that, if she marries him, she is in violation of what most Pakistani Muslims (and many Muslims as such) regard as a central tenet of the faith. The assumption is that in marrying a non-Muslim man, a Muslim woman has surrendered the offspring of the marriage to the man’s religion (or irreligion), in effect suborning the childrens’ apostasy from Islam. (The underlying assumption is that that all children are by definition born as Muslims). A woman in this situation is, in a sense, guilty of an indirect form of apostasy: though she is not herself an apostate, she reveals herself willing to surrender her children to apostasy. Hence the perceived gravity of the crime.

Note that even if the man were (sincerely or insincerely) to convert to Islam, it is an open question whether his conversion would be honored by those inclined to doubt him. And for obvious reasons, there would be ample reason to doubt the sincerity of such a conversion.

The preceding facts by themselves suggest that Ms. Ibrahim’s situation puts her at risk of harm if she were to return to Pakistan. But a bare recounting of the letter of Islamic law understates the nature of the problem. People—and in particular women—are killed and maimed today in Pakistan for violations that fall far short of the letter of Islamic law, and occasionally, are killed or harmed for violations that bear no recognizable relation to religious law whatsoever.

As Human Rights Watch puts the point in its World Report 2015 on Pakistan:

Violence against women and girls—including rape, murder through so-called honor killings, acid attacks, domestic violence, and forced marriage—remained routine. Pakistani human rights nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) estimate that there are about 1,000 “honor killings” every year.[2]

Amnesty International’s Report for 2014-2015 specifically mentions “the risks to women from their own families for seeking to marry partners of their own choice,” mentioning the case of Farzana Parveen, who was killed just outside of the Lahore High Court by her father and ex-husband for that reason.[3] As the recent murder of the singer and fashion model Qandeel Baloch highlights, Pakistani women are not protected even by celebrity status: Qandeel Baloch may have had 700,000 Facebook followers, but was murdered (by her brother) for her perceived “shamelessness” just the same.[4]  The case of Malala Yousafzai, though unrelated to honor killings, is yet another poignant example of the dangers that Pakistani women face for relatively ordinary activity.

A recent report in The New York Times reports on the passage, by the Pakistani National Assembly, of laws intended to toughen the legal sanctions against those who commit “honor killings” by “relatives angered by behavior they believe has impugned the family’s reputation.”[5]  The passage of the laws is certainly a step forward, but also implicitly indicates the severity of the problem that the laws were intended to remedy. As Yasmeen Hassan, global director of the human rights group Equality Now, puts it: “We hope that these new laws will help generate a cultural shift in Pakistani society and that women will be able to live their lives in safety.”[6] Ms. Hassan’s statement highlights the fact that as things stand, the relevant shift has not taken place: in other words, women are currently not able to live their lives in safety. Two recent Pakistani films, the dramatic production “Bol,” and the documentary “A Girl in the River,” explore these issues in persuasive ways.[7]

Though not directly related to honor killings, it’s worth pointing out that on October 7, 2016, the U.S. State Department issued a travel warning “against all non-essential travel to Pakistan,” citing “significant terrorist violence, including sectarian attacks.”[8] If these generalized considerations can justify a travel warning to American citizens—and justify severe restrictions on movement by U.S. government personnel in Pakistan—Ms.  Ibrahim’s more specific and particularized concerns surely merit serious consideration.

As a woman, Ms. Ibrahim’s rights already carry less weight in Pakistan than they would if she were a man. As a secular woman, she invites widespread disapproval. But as a secular woman with American connections and a non-Muslim husband, Ms. Ibrahim puts herself at substantial risk of serious injury or death. It would take very little inducement for someone to hear about her situation, target her for vigilante punishment, and do her harm. If this were to happen, she would have little or no legal or other recourse; she would essentially be at her victimizers’ mercy—a terrifying prospect. As Amnesty International puts it:  “Women also risked abuse while seeking to exercise their rights” in the Pakistani legal system.[9] Though the law is (now) on her side, social custom stands firmly against it, and in Pakistan as elsewhere, no law can defeat the prejudices of a determined majority.

While I have put the preceding points conditionally, as an “if,” I’m inclined to think that something untoward is likely to happen to Ms. Ibrahim if she returns to Pakistan. It is simply implausible to imagine that she can return to Pakistan with a non-Muslim husband, and not be on the receiving end of some kind of sanction. Even in the mildest case, these sanctions would be enough to undermine the envisioned point of demanding her return to Pakistan. The point of demanding her return to Pakistan, I take it, is to make a positive contribution to Pakistani life, but it is hard to imagine how Ms. Ibrahim could function effectively in Pakistan if she were struggling constantly against social pressures intended to derail her life, as would almost certainly be the case. Things are worse in the more severe cases I have in mind: there is obviously no point in demanding Ms. Ibrahim return to Pakistan if doing so will kill her. But it very well could.

I would ask U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to reconsider the legal requirement that Ms. Ibrahim return to Pakistan. Under ordinary circumstances, the J-1 requirement has an intelligible and justifiable purpose. But it is hard to believe that the requirement’s framers had circumstances like Ms. Ibrahim’s in mind when they crafted it. The requirement’s intended aims are simply not satisfied under the present circumstances. It makes no sense to demand that someone satisfy an immigration requirement under conditions that threaten the would-be act of immigration by threatening the would-be immigrant’s life. There may come a time when it would be prudent for Ms. Ibrahim to return to Pakistan, but for the near future, it would flout prudence for her to return, and flout justice to demand that she return. The letter of immigration law is an important consideration, but as the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution makes clear,[10] justice is part of the letter of every American law. In this case, I would argue that justice requires a waiver of the J-1 requirement, and demands that we allow Ms. Ibrahim to make her own decision about when and whether to return to Pakistan.

Sincerely,

 

Irfan Khawaja
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Felician University
Lodi, New Jersey 07644


[1] One cousin, Khawaja Saad Rafiq, is the Federal Minister of Railways, and was for several years a Member of the National Assembly; another cousin, Khawaja Salman Rafiq, is Special Minister for Health to Shahbaz Sharif, the Governor of Punjab; and a third cousin, Lubna Faisal, is a Member of the Provincial Assembly in Punjab.

[2] Accessed at: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/pakistan.

[3] Amnesty International Report 2014-15, The State of the World’s Human Rights (London: Amnesty International, 2015), p. 285.

[4] Salman Masood, “Qandeel Baloch, Pakistani Social Media Celebrity, Dead in Apparent Honor Killing,” The New York Times, July 16, 2016.

[5] Salman Masood, “Pakistan Toughens Laws on Rape and ‘Honor Killings’ of Women,” The New York Times, Oct. 6, 2016.

[6] Masood, “Pakistan Toughens Law.”

[7] See Saba Imtiaz, “Oscar Win Shines Light on Pakistan Efforts to Stop ‘Honor Killings’,” The New York Times, March 2, 2016. On “Bol,” see “Rave Reviews: Bol Inspires Audiences Across the Border,” The Express Tribune (Lahore), August 31, 2011.

[8] STEP Notifications, Pakistan Travel Warning, October 7, 2016, to ACS_Pakistan@calist.state.gov, Friday, October 7, 2016 at 8:40 am. Accessible at: https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/alertswarnings/pakistan-travel-warning.html.

[9] Amnesty International Report 2014-15, p. 285.

[10] “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America …”

One thought on “One Little Victory

  1. A follow-up:

    STEP Notifications Unsubscribe
    Dec 8 (3 days ago)

    to ACS_PAKISTAN
    The Department of State warns U.S. citizens against all non-essential travel to Pakistan. This Travel Warning replaces the Travel Warning dated May 22, 2017.

    Consular services provided by the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, the Consulate General in Karachi, and the Consulate General in Lahore are often limited due to the security environment. At this time, the Consulate General in Peshawar is not providing consular services.

    Pakistan continues to experience significant terrorist violence, including sectarian attacks. Targeted attacks against government officials, humanitarian and non-governmental organization (NGO) employees, tribal elders, and law enforcement personnel are common. Throughout Pakistan, foreign and indigenous terrorist groups continue to pose a danger to U.S. citizens. Terrorists have targeted U.S. diplomats and diplomatic facilities in the past, and evidence suggests they continue to do so. Terrorists and criminal groups have resorted to kidnapping for ransom.

    The Government of Pakistan maintains heightened security measures, particularly in major cities, following attacks or in response to threats.

    Terrorists continue to target:

    Heavily guarded facilities, such as military and government installations and airports
    Universities, schools, and hospitals
    Places of worship of various faiths
    Rallies, public parks, and sports venues
    Hotels, markets, shopping malls, and restaurants
    In Balochistan, insurgent and terrorist groups conducted numerous suicide bombings, hand grenade attacks, and ambushes on Pakistani security forces and civilians over the past six months. A suicide bomber in Quetta targeted senior police officers near Shuhada Chowk, killing 14 people and wounding 30. In Chaman, a suicide bomber attacked a police convoy, killing three police officials and injuring 20 others. Two hand grenade attacks in Gwadar and Mastung injured 41 people. In Quetta, a suicide bomber killed 21 people and wounded 45 in an attack on the Pishin bus terminal. A suicide bomber in Jhal Magsi attacked worshippers at the Sufi shrine of Pir Rakhyal Shah in the Fatehpur area, killing 19 and injuring 30. A suicide bomber in Quetta attacked a police convoy on the Sibbi Road in the Saryab mill area, killing seven and wounding 23.

    In Punjab province, three suicide bombings targeting police and military officials in Lahore killed at least 47 and injured more than 100 others.

    In Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province and the Federally Administered Tribal areas (FATA), there have been numerous recent attacks by insurgent and terrorist groups targeting government officials, NGO/Aid workers, religious minorities, and civilians to include over 67 improvised explosive devices (IED), 148 reported occurrences of small arms fire, 28 known assassination attempts, and 17 kidnappings. Assassination and kidnapping attempts are common throughout these areas. Terrorist organizations operating in the area have not discriminated between government officials and civilians.

    Since May 2017, the following significant attacks have occurred: in Parachinar, an IED targeting the Tori Market killed 67 civilians and injured 75; in Jamrud, an IED attack targeting peace committee workers killed at least five civilians; in Charsadda, at least five IEDs exploded, injuring 14 people; IEDs targeting Peshawar Hospital injured five people; and in Peshawar the detonation of a “toy bomb” killed one child and injured six.

    Sectarian violence remains a serious threat throughout Pakistan, and the Government of Pakistan continues to enforce blasphemy laws. Religious minority communities have been victims of targeted killings and accusations of blasphemy.

    The local government restricts access for foreigners to many areas, including:

    the FATA near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border,
    Swat Valley in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province,
    the area adjacent to the Line of Control in the disputed territory of Kashmir,
    Much of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province and Balochistan.
    Travel by U.S. government personnel within Pakistan is restricted, and movements by U.S. government personnel outside of U.S. diplomatic facilities in Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore, and Peshawar are sometimes severely restricted depending on local circumstances and security conditions, which can change suddenly.

    If you choose to live or travel in Pakistan despite this warning, you should:

    Vary travel routes and timing, especially for routine trips.
    Minimize the duration of trips to public markets, restaurants, government and military institutions, and other locations.
    Minimize the number of U.S./western nationals congregating in any one location at any time.
    Avoid hotels that do not apply stringent security measures.
    Take a photo of your passport, entry stamp, and Pakistani visa, and keep it with you at all times. Keep digital copies of these documents in a secure, electronically accessible place.
    Advisory Notice to Airmen (NOTAM): The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued a NOTAM concerning the risks to civil aviation operating in Pakistan, particularly at low altitude, during the arrival and departure phases of flight, and when on the ground, due to extremist/militant activity. The Advisory NOTAM does not prohibit U.S. operators or airmen from operating in the specified area, as it is strictly an advisory notice.

    For background information on FAA flight prohibitions and advisories for U.S. civil aviation, see the Federal Aviation Administration’s Prohibitions, Restrictions and Notices.

    For further information:

    See the State Department’s travel website for the Worldwide Caution, Travel Warnings, Travel Alerts, andPakistan Country Specific Information.
    Enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program(STEP) to receive security messages and make it easier for us to locate you in an emergency.
    Contact the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, located at Diplomatic Enclave, Ramna 5, Islamabad, Pakistan, by email at ACSIslamabad@state.gov. The after-hours emergency assistance number for U.S. citizens is (92)(51) 201-4000 or (92)(51)201-5000. https://pk.usembassy.gov/embassy-consulates/islamabad/
    Contact theU.S. Consulate General in Karachi, located at Plot 3-5 New TPX Area, Mai Kolachi Road. The after-hours emergency assistance number for U.S. citizens is (92-21) 3527-5000. https://pk.usembassy.gov/embassy-consulates/karachi/
    Contact the U.S. Consulate General in Lahore, located at 50, Shahrah-e-Abdul Hameed Bin Badees, (Old Empress Road) near Shimla Hill Circle. The after-hours emergency assistance number for U.S. citizens is (92-42)3603-4000. https://pk.usembassy.gov/embassy-consulates/lahore/
    Contact the U.S. Consulate in Peshawar, located at 11 Hospital Road, Peshawar Cantonment, at +92 91 526 8800. (Calling within Pakistan, dial 091 526 8800.) This number is available 24 hours a day for emergencies involving U.S. citizens in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). See also Consulate General Peshawar’s section on the Mission Pakistan webpage: https://pk.usembassy.gov/embassy-consulates/peshawar/
    Call 1-888-407-4747 toll-free in the United States and Canada or 1-202-501-4444 from other countries from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday (except U.S. federal holidays).
    Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s