America's refugee crisis

A lot has been coming up in the news lately regarding the influx of unaccompanied immigrant children to the United States, and the amount of ignorance and racism surrounding the issue is astounding. People have taken so much time decrying the situation, they make no attempt to go beyond the surface and look at the issues surrounding it. And that's what I hope to do here.

Why are they fleeing? [a.k.a. "Wah wah, they're just coming here because Obama told them they'd have a better life"]
There are countless reasons why someone would flee a violent, unstable country and risk the dangers to get somewhere that they believe would be safe. It has been happening for centuries; this isn't exactly a new phenomenon on the global scale.

In this instance, about a quarter of the children this year are from Honduras, a notoriously violent and unstable country. One child, age 11, describes a community where murders (especially of people he knows) happen on a regular basis, one girl close to his age brutally killed over $5. As Sonia Nazario, writing for the New York Times, says, this "is not an immigration crisis. It is a refugee crisis."

UNHCR, in a report on this crisis, spoke to a number of children fleeing their home countries. They quote a 14-year-old girl from El Salvador, who says:

There are problems in my country. The biggest problem is the gangs. They go into the school and take girls out and kill them . . . I used to see reports on the TV every day about girls being buried in their uniforms with their backpacks and notebooks. I had to go very far to go to school, and I had to walk by myself. There was nowhere else I could go where it would be safer. I lived in a village, and it was even worse in cities.

 The refugee organization also notes that America is not the only country affected by this. According to this same report, Mexico, Panama, Costa Rica, Belize, and Nicaragua have reported a 432% increase in the number of asylum applications since 2009 from citizens of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala (which is where the majority asylum applicants in the US originate as well).

So yes, I suppose one can argue that they are coming here for a better life. For them, however, a better life is simply one where they do not have to live in fear every day of being exploited or murdered by vicious criminals operating with impunity.

Why aren't we turning these kids away or deporting them immediately? [a.k.a. "I am a horrible person"]
Because they are refugees applying for asylum, and there are very strict laws governing that. First off, to repatriate a refugee is a violation of the principle of non-refoulement (enshrined in international law), which forbids returning a refugee to a place where they face threats to their lives or freedoms. Some may claim that these kids may not fit the definition of a true refugee, which is an acceptable argument. However, there must first be an assessment to determine one's claim for asylum. To return someone to their home country without first making such an assessment is still a violation of that principle.

You may be asking, what makes these kids true refugees? According to UNHCR:

A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries.

 As has been shown above, these children have fled due to the excessive violence in their home countries and the well-founded fear of becoming victims of this violence. Obviously, an individual assessment must be done to determine if this fear is well-founded and if they meet the other requirements for declaring someone a refugee (which in the US system is very strict), but this process takes time, and we need to house these applicants somewhere in the meantime.

In the New York metropolitan area, asylum seekers are detained in the Elizabeth Contract Detention Facility in Elizabeth, NJ, where they await their immigration hearings. Occasionally asylum seekers are released into the custody of family members or legal representatives who agree to take responsibility of the person until a final determination is made, which is exactly what the proposal for these children is.

[A sidenote about the Elizabeth Detention Facility and others: the Elizabeth center, while ostensibly controlled by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is in reality owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), a for-profit prison management company, part of the prison-industrial complex. In other locations, asylum seekers are detained in "regular" prisons, alongside actual convicted criminals. This means the United States is treating asylum seekers, who are fleeing persecution in their home countries, like criminals when they have for the most part done nothing wrong except enter the country and SURRENDER THEMSELVES IMMEDIATELY, which is all that is necessary for their cases to begin. Yes, some may enter through illegal means, but if you were someone fleeing persecution and possible death in your home country, wouldn't you use any means necessary to get to a safe location?]

Returning to an earlier point, discussing the US's obligations under international law, I know there are many voices in the United States that say that we should not be beholden to what other countries say, as it degrades our sovereignty. First, the US is not beholden to any international law unless it subscribes to that law. In this instance, the US is a signatory to the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which means that it must conform with those standards. Furthermore, as Joan Fitzpatrick, a professor of law at the University of Washington, explains, the Refugee Act of 1980 (adopted by the Senate unanimously) codifies the text of the Protocol into US law.

Second, the United States is part of the global community, and one part of that is participating in international law. If we don't want to participate and prefer to return to pre-World War American isolationism, then in addition to withdrawing international law, we should not participate in anything internationally. This means withdrawing from our various military engagements, including dismantling our bases around the world, and withdrawing from our multitude of political and military alliances with a vast number of countries. If this sounds ridiculous, that is because it is. In the 21st century, it is nearly impossible to withdraw from the global community, even in a political sense. If we cannot withdraw, then we must learn how to operate within it.

Why is Obama allowing this to happen?
The short answer is, he's not. This massive influx has been tied to the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (read the full text here), which was actually signed by President Bush in one of his last acts as president. Obama did not create the policy, he is simply enforcing it. His critics further claim that he is being soft on illegal immigration, which is patently false. In fact, Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any president in modern history. In 2012 alone, Obama deported 409,849 people, nearly four times as many as Bush Sr. did in his entire presidency.

Another question needs to be asked: why is this law so important? It is designed to prevent and deter human trafficking, which is a serious global and domestic issue. According to a 2005 State Department report, between 14,500 and 17,500 people are trafficked in the United States each year. Not all trafficking victims in the US are illegal; victims are a mix of US citizens and foreign nationals. Therefore, repealing this law (as many outraged with this influx of child refugees are clamoring for) would not only hurt foreign nationals, legal or illegal, which have come to this country for refuge, but American citizens as well who likewise need protection.

The Polaris Project has a vast FAQ about trafficking in the United States, which is well worth the read.

Why are my taxpayer dollars going toward supporting illegal immigrants?
The first initial distinction that is necessary is that these are not simply illegal immigrants, they are refugees, which fall into a completely different category, as explained at the very beginning. While yes, taxpayer dollars may be used to get refugees set up in their new lives, ultimately they end up paying more in taxes than were initially used to resettle them. As soon as refugees are settled, they are expected to get jobs and start paying taxes (and no, they do not steal jobs from Americans).


I hope here I have been able to make this as comprehensive yet readable as possible, and clear up any concerns about these children entering the country. While yes, the high numbers are shocking, it is indicative of a systematic problem that the US has a moral and legal obligation to help resolve. It is not the threat to Americans that people seem to think it is, but it is something that needs to be addressed before this refugee crisis becomes even worse.

It's official, Hollister discriminates

Jezebel: Surprise, Surprise: Hollister Discriminates Against the Disabled

Not 3 months after I initially posted my own experiences and opinions on Hollister's (and by extension its parent company, Abercrombie & Fitch), a federal judge has ruled that Hollister does indeed discriminate against the disabled. Color me shocked. This, combined with A&F CEO Mike Jeffries' recent inflammatory statements, and they better get themselves a new PR person immediately. I really hope that this will be the beginning of their fast and furious descent into bankruptcy and irrelevancy, but sadly I don't think that will be the case. It's nice to dream, though.

I have no words

Defense News- Rep. Issa: Christianity's Roots Would Justify US Mission in Syria

Oh wait, I forgot. It's evil and wrong when Muslims bring religion into politics, but when Christians do it, it's a moral absolute.

Discrimination in not-so-plain sight

It's been a long time since I've gone into a Hollister store to shop for myself. However, for Christmas my mother bought me a top from there while shopping for my teenage and near-teenage children of my cousins (and boy do I feel old saying that) which was a little too youth-like to wear around the office. So the day after Christmas, Mom and I went to the mall for our annual day-after shopping/returns outing.

At this time, I was just over a week post-op from my hip surgery, and was non-weight bearing on crutches. Being that we always go shopping for awhile, and I was still really tired from the crutches, we grabbed a wheelchair so I could get around the mall more easily. This was my third time using the wheelchair at the mall since my surgery (yeah, I know, I have a shopping problem) and therefore felt pretty accustomed to the difficulty of navigating through stores while in the chair. However, nothing could have prepared me for the total shitstorm that is navigating through Hollister in a wheelchair.

First off, it is crazy even getting into the store. If you've seen one Hollister, you've seen them all- the standard mall entrance for this store is a couple of steps up onto a veranda, then a couple more steps down into the actual store. Stairs not really being conducive to wheelchair-operations, everyone I told this story to has said, "wait, how did you get a wheelchair in there?" They do, in fact, have a handicap-accessible entrance- around the side, masked into the faux-door decor where most people won't even see it.

Once inside, it was a madhouse. The dimly-lit store, difficult enough when you're able-bodied ("wait, what color is that shirt?") is even harder when you're trying to make sure you won't run over something thrown to the floor in a fit of shopping frenzy by a teenager laden down with Christmas money. Also hard? Reaching most of the products from a sitting position. Most of the stuff I looked at was hanging off of racks, since I could not reach a lot of the tables. And if I wanted to look at something hanging on the wall? Forget it! First, I couldn't reach it from a sitting position (which to be fair, I couldn't do at most stores). Second, and most important, the layout of the store made it nearly impossible to navigate between the tables and the wall. Hell, even navigating within the "aisles" was pretty hard. Even if the store hadn't been filled with rowdy teens, it would have been an extremely tight fit.

After all of the battling to even get through the store, it came time for the dressing room. Note to anyone in a wheelchair that wants to try things on at Hollister: even though you want to try something on, Hollister doesn't want you to try it on. The fitting room assistant helped my mom navigate the chair back into the "handicap" area, pushing all of the curtains out of the way to ensure I could get back there and apologizing profusely because of the difficulty. To be clear: she wasn't apologizing because she couldn't navigate the wheelchair (she did a great job with that and was super helpful), she was apologizing because the fitting room "hallway" wasn't designed for a wheelchair. Had the fitting rooms been cordoned off with actual walls instead of curtains, there is no way I would have been able to fit in there.

Given all of the past discrimination suits against Abercrombie & Fitch (Hollister's parent company), I was not surprised in the least. The CEO of the company, Mike Jeffries, said the following in a 2006 interview with Salon:

Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely. Those companies that are in trouble are trying to target everybody: young, old, fat, skinny. But then you become totally vanilla. You don’t alienate anybody, but you don’t excite anybody, either.

Clearly, A&F has an image to maintain in terms of physical appearance. They want young, attractive, popular kids wearing their clothes- no fatties allowed, thank you very much. (In an anecdotal story related to me by my brother, a high school classmate whose hairstyle and dress were very much "punk" was told not to come into the store, as they likely "didn't have the type of clothes you're looking for.") But does that ideal also mean it only wants able-bodied kids shopping there? One discrimination suit filed against the company by a former employee who wears a prosthetic arm claims that she was demoted to the stockroom from the shop floor for wearing a cardigan to mask the arm (permission for which was granted when she was hired), with managers telling her that it didn't fit the "look."

Between all of the discrimination suits against the parent company in the past, and my own personal experience, I am convinced that they have purposely designed their Hollister fitting rooms to not fit wheelchairs in order to prevent/discourage disabled people from shopping at the store. Even their front facade is unwelcoming, telling those lesser-abled that they're not welcome. Jeffries has already admitted that the company is "absolutely" exclusionary, and a young person in a wheelchair certainly doesn't fit A&F's image of the perfect "all-American kid."

I hate to tell him (no, wait, I'd love to tell him), but there is no typical American kid. We come in all colors, shapes, sizes, and religions, and some of us even have disabilities, some of which might not be apparent to the eye. And while we might not all want to shop at a particular store, we have the right to not face outward hostility because we don't fit some illusion of youth perfection dreamed up by an over-the-hill guy trying so desperately to cling onto his long-past youth.

Belle's got some issues

So a bit divergent from what I usually comment on here....

During a long day of working, I decided to put on my Disney Pandora station (don't judge) and kept hearing songs from Beauty and the Beast. Unfortunately due to my habit of reading everything on the internet, every time I hear songs from this movie or even watch it, I think of a lot of critiques of this and other Disney films in terms of feminism and relationships. In terms of Beauty and the Beast, many people comment that Belle is essentially in an abusive relationship with the Beast- he yells at her a lot, threatens violence, etc. I always try to defend the movie, since it is tied for my favorite Disney film (with Aladdin, of course).

However, I'll look at it from that perspective and try to give an honest critique. Yes, he does exhibit signs of violence and abusive behavior. However, by the end of the film, he changes. In fitting with the critique, it does send a dangerous message to young girls that you can "fix" a man, particularly an abusive man. But, if we're going to critique this film honestly, I think this is the least of the problems.

First things first- Belle has some serious Stockholm syndrome. The Beast takes her prisoner, threatens her with violence, and acts like a general dick towards her. And her response is to fall in love with him, and then once released, try to defend him from the vicious mob on their way to kill him? Girl's got it bad. And by "it," I mean Stockholm syndrome. Honestly, the general feminist critique that Belle is in an abusive relationship really boils down to this: she's in that relationship because she's got some underlying psychological issue after her imprisonment by the Beast.

Second, and most importantly- is no one going to mention the bestiality part?!?! He is, quite literally, a beast when she meets (and falls in love with) him. Yes, at the end he transforms into a human, but it is initially the animal that she falls in love with. Let's hope they didn't consummate their relationship until after the curse was broken.

So, we've got severe psychological issues and the fact that she's fallen in love with an animal, on top of the fact that this being she wants to have a relationship with is abusive towards her. Girl needs some help.

All that being said, this is my favorite Disney movie and if you try to cut it down, I will cut you. And what, would you prefer she be with that giant douche Gaston?



Totally OT PS: Pandora is killing me with all the Glee covers. My rage just boils over, especially listening to Lea Michele's vocal swoops in every effing song.

Rush Limbaugh is a disgusting excuse for a human being

ABC News: Rush Limbaugh Doubles Down On Sandra Fluke, Offering 'As Much Aspirin to Put Between Her Knees As She Wants'

I'm sure there's not a single person in the English-speaking world who's not aware of the horrific comments Rush Limbaugh recently made on his show, calling Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke a slut for trying to testify at a Capitol Hill panel on the birth control mandate that has the GOP in a fit.

One of the most ridiculous comments from Limbaugh: “They’re admitting before congressional committee that they’re having so much sex they can’t afford the birth control pills!”  It is deeply disturbing how Limbaugh, and countless other leaders of the GOP fail to disassociate birth control pills and sex.  Part of Fluke's testimony dealt specifically with that- how a friend of hers who needed the medication to prevent ovarian cysts.  That's just one thing; oral contraceptives also protect against and/or treat Endometriosis, Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, menstrual cramps and heavy periods, along with other disorders.  Any knowledgeable woman engaging in sexual intercourse is using condoms or something else that prevents transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, since that is one thing the pill doesn't do.

Limbaugh is just another man in a long line of men trying to control women.  We have access to education and financial freedom, but the control freaks can't allow us to have medical or sexual freedom.  His disgusting and degrading comments on how women should be forced to videotape sex acts since "we are going to pay for your contraceptives" only continues to objectify women.  Do I ask to see sex tapes of a man after he has had a vasectomy, since insurance covered it?  No, nor would I want to.  It is a private medical procedure, which is between him and his doctor.  If the insurance company has a problem with it, they can bring it up privately.  It is not a matter for public record.

I can only hope that the rest of the GOP steps up and condemns this disgusting excuse for a human being for his completely degrading, misogynistic comments on this issue.  Looking at the field of Republican nominees and their own stances on women's health issues, I think I will be hoping in futility.

UPDATE:
I just read the transcript of Limbaugh's show where he made these comments.  He just does not get it.  He tries equating condoms and oral contraceptives, which are not the same thing at all.  The only thing they have in common is that they can prevent pregnancy.  However, condoms prevent transmission of STDs, which oral contraceptives do not.  Oral contraceptives contain hormones and prevent against disorders of the reproductive system, which condoms do not.  So how are they the same thing?  Also, apparently he thinks that you need to take a pill each time you have sex.  Again, a pill is not like a condom.  One pill, once a day. God forbid Limbaugh educate himself on an issue before he opens his mouth.

Also, this: "Ms. Fluke, have you ever heard of not having sex?"  USE OF ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES SHOULD NOT BE EQUATED WITH SEXUAL ACTIVITY!  I have heard of not having sex.  In fact, I was not having sex for the first four years I was on oral contraceptives.  Why?  Because it is very commonly used to treat medical conditions like the one I and many other women have.

I do love the one part Limbaugh got right.

FLUKE: When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage.

RUSH: Prove it! Stop the tape. Prove it! What is "on their faces"? Acne? What is it, acne? Zits? What's on their faces that tells you? Seriously!

Yes!  Acne would prove it, as oral contraceptives are proven to reduce acne and zits!  This is absolutely hilarious, that the only time he hits on the truth is when he is trying to be ridiculous and facetious. 

Corporate interference in healthcare

I seem to be going through the never-ending medical saga.  For the past few years, our insurance plan has required us to order any long-term prescriptions through a mail-order pharmacy, Medco.  This is supposedly supposed to be an easy way for us to get our prescriptions, and also helps save the insurance company money.  Fine, whatever.

But it's not 'fine, whatever.'  Our family's personal experience with Medco has been mediocre, at best.  Since the beginning, there have been issues of generics being changed, prescriptions not getting refilled on time, and other similar things.  Then for awhile it evened out.  Our doctors' offices and Medco finally seemed to be communicating, and our prescriptions were filled regularly and on-time.

A few months ago, I noticed an odd change when I received my birth control pills in the mail.  After my doctor mailed in a refill, I received pills with a completely different dosage than the one I had been receiving.  I was furious, after having dealt with Medco's errors before.  However, it turns out that one was on my doctor (they had the wrong dosage listed on accident), and my doctor's office offered to change the prescription immediately.  I said I would stay on the new dosage unless I found it to have adverse side effects, in which case I would contact them for a new prescription.

Two months later, the adverse side effects are there in full force.  I call my doctor's office and ask them to change it as soon as possible.  They comply.

The following week, I receive a prescription in the mail and I assume it is the one I had switched with my doctor's office.  Nope.  Not only is it the wrong dosage (1.5/30 instead of the 1/20 I requested), but it is a completely different brand than the pill I've been taking for over 2 years.  Needless to say, after having my generics switched around on a monthly basis about a year in (and having my body protest each time), I refused to take them.  Naturally, I assumed this was an error on Medco's part and called them to sort it out.

After an hour on the phone with 2 customer service reps and a pharmacist (who I forgot to ask if she was even licensed in NYS), I have heard the following things from Medco:

1. The prescription for the 1.5/30 was automatically refilled (note: I do not recall authorizing this)
2. My doctor's office sent a prescription in July for 1.5/30 which was unable to be filled; they sent me notification that they would hold this prescription until it was time to be filled (note: I never received a notice, and also, they received 2 prescriptions on the same day in July for 1.5/30 and 1/20.  Wouldn't you think they would clarify which was the correct one?)
3. The generic for Loestrin has been switched from Microgestin (which I've been on for 2 years) to Gildess due to 'corporate interest'.
4. Even though I cannot and will not use either Gildess prescription mailed to me (both 1.5/30 and 1/20) and offered to mail them back, I am still responsible for the co-pays on both.

The first two had fairly brief rebuttals; the second two are a bit more lengthy.  First, to point #3.

As I was reading Gothamist when I got home from work today, I came across an interesting article about a recall on birth control pills.  My curiosity was highly piqued after my saga of the never-ending birth control pills (my mom actually called me today after finally receiving the correct pills: "Good Lord, how many times are you going to get birth control pills this week?!").  I followed up with that article on Jezebel, which linked to the manufacturer Qualitest's recall list.  Guess what?  Gildess Fe 1.3/30 and Gildess Fe 1/20 (both of which were sent to me) ARE ON THE LIST!

So, let's recap: first, Medco changes my generic prescription due to 'corporate interest.'  Second, the corporation's preferred drug of choice is now *gasp* under recall!  Fan-fucking-tastic job, Medco.  You would think an organization that calls itself a pharmacy would put its patients before its pocketbooks.  But no, silly Kim, we live in an overbloated capitalist society where even those who are supposed to be looking out for our best interests sell us out for a quick buck.

The pharmacist I spoke to at Medco said that even my local pharmacy would do something like that.  Possibly, but my local pharmacist would also work with me to make sure I was getting exactly what I wanted and needed.  I've grown up with my local pharmacist's daughter (kindergarten through high school, and our parents still live down the street from each other), so she knows me and will want to make sure that my health is being taken care of.  While the company may try to cut costs, I know she won't let that happen.

Point #4: in what other place in the United States would you be forced to pay for something you have not used, and also returned back to the place you got it from?  I can understand some issues about things being tampered with before they were sent back, but a) I would assume they would automatically destroy whatever comes back for that exact reason, and b) they're blister packs, which would usually be pretty obvious if someone tampered with them.  Medco's tune was very nice at the beginning, but once I started getting angry and upset (they're screwing with my body, and also keeping me on hold for 5 minutes at a time), they shut down.  Now there's a company that can't take criticism.

And even on top of all this personal stuff (oh BTW, they've also been screwing with my mom's blood pressure medication- something you should never ever mess with, especially if you're not a doctor), I found some other very interesting stuff doing research.

In 2003, Medco was brought to court for a bunch of illegal, unethical, and questionable practices by none other than the United States government (this will open a PDF that I highly suggest you read).  They cite numerous things that Medco has allegedly done wrong, such as having non-pharmacists doing things that should only be done by licensed pharmacists, changing prescriptions, falsifying records, and flat-out lying to patients, among other things.  I found numerous citations in the suit that reflect exactly what Medco has been doing to me, 7 years after the case was settled out of court (with Medco paying a hefty settlement: $29 million to 20 state governments and $115 million to the federal government).

Oh, and one more thing: up until recently (and definitely as recently as that 2003 civil case), Medco was actually Merck Medco Managed Care, L.L.C., which was owned by Merck.  One of the largest drug manufacturers in the world.  Now tell me, how is it ethically or legally possible to have a Prescriptions Benefits Management company owned by a drug company?  The case cited evidence of Medco giving preferential treatment to Merck-manufactured drugs, even in spite of doctors' explicit orders for specific medications.

The case goes on and on, and there has been some recent news from other places in the country about Medco's ongoing unethical practices since that time (including a former Medco pharmacist in Florida undergoing a hunger strike  in 2010 in protest).  My own personal case highlights these ongoing practices.

I plan on contacting Medco again on Monday morning, and taking this further if they refuse to at least eliminate the co-pay for my unwanted medications.  From there, it's the HR staff with our health insurance company, and if needed, the Attorney General's office.  Clearly Medco hasn't changed a bit since 2003.  Maybe if enough people get on board they will finally be forced to change their tune.