I never give more than I have, but I never run out of things to give. There is a reason for that. Many people when they talk about giving, they are talking about giving with their wallet. My wallet is quite small. To give with my wallet would end quickly. Instead, I choose to give with my heart. When a person has a healthy heart--not talking about medical health here--it is a font of love; it has no end. It doesn't run out.
Do you give? How do you give?
Yo nunca doy mas que tengo, pero nunca acaba lo que puedo dar. Hay una razon. Muchas personas, cuando hablan de dar, estan hablando de dar con su billetera. Mi billetera es muy pequeña. Dar con mi billetera terminaria rapido. En cambio, yo elijo dar con mi corazon. Cuando alguien tiene un corazon saludable--y no estoy hablando de salud medica aqui--es un manantial de amor; no tiene fin. No acaba.
Y usted da? Como da?
Showing posts with label bilingual. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bilingual. Show all posts
Friday, May 2, 2014
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
An Observation on US Culture: Day 1,210
(A continuacion en español)
There is something about US culture which I might have not noticed if my boyfriend hadn't brought it up. He asked me, "How can parents care more for other people than their own children?" (This is, of course, his way of looking at it as a Guatemalan.) You see, here in Guatemala, it is common for children to live with their parents, their grandparents, their great-grandparents, whoever.
In the United States at 18 to 20 years of age, it is common to shoo one's own children out of the house, to make them live on their own. We call it "growing up." In reality, it's "sink or swim," and if they don't swim? This is an even bigger problem with the male population. They are constantly bombarded with a cultural stigma which tells them "You'll never get a girl if you live at mom and dad's house." And girls are told that a guy should not live with his parents if he's going to be "date-able." (They start believing this very young.) I lived with my folks until I came to Guatemala at the age of 25, and my mother had mentioned the idea of me paying rent more than once.
However, this US cultural "standard" has me baffled. An older generation present helps to keep their kids in line. The possibility of acting irresponsibly is lessened because there is almost always supervision. Shared expenses are lessened expenses. You don't need two housing payments, two internet hook-ups, two electric bills (although the one would be higher than usual, but not equal to two), etc. Also, as I was buying a rolling pin the other day, it made me think about life with my folks. My parents have a rolling pin; I don't know if my brother does or not, but when our parents pass on, what will happen to their rolling pin? I don't need it anymore; I have my own. So, living away from one's family creates more unnecessary consumerism which, is really great when one has extra money to spend because it helps the economy, but for a young single person or a young couple, it's pointless spending. Young singles don't need to spend money on stuff like rolling pins; they need to save it to build a future or spend time together or whatever else...or on things that have a short life (in comparison to rolling pins) such as computers or cars or washing machines.
Finally, there is the simple fact that people living in large groups is more effective and efficient than small groups (or alone). A young couple will have the advice and assistance of previous generations. Perhaps grandma's eyesight isn't good enough to weave or sew, and perhaps she can't stand over the fire cooking anymore, but she can rock the baby. So, why, in place of shutting her away in a nursing home somewhere, don't we let her continue to serve a useful and valuable place in society? She will receive her meals from people who know her and love her, and she will watch their children and pass on stories of times gone by. And when, at last, she is no longer able to contribute anything to the family, they will care for her as she did for her children when they were babies, still too little to contribute anything.
I wouldn't say that my parents care for me any less than my boyfriend's parents care for him; they simply express it differently. However, the excessive spending heaped on young people combined with the lack of support makes life unnecessarily difficult.
************
Hay algo de la cultura de los EE.UU. que tal vez no habia logrado notar sino por mi novio. Él me preguntó, "¿Como pueden papás alla quieren mas para otras personas que sus propios hijos?" Aqui en Guatemala, es muy comun que hijos viven con sus padres, sus abuelos, sus bisabuelos, quien sea.
En los EE.UU. a los 18 o 20 años, es comun sacar sus propios hijos de la casa, hacerles vivir solos. Lo llamamos "madurando." En realidad, es "hundir o nadar," ¿y si no naden? Es un problema mas grande con la poblacion masculina. Siempre estan atacados con un estigma cultural que les dice "Nunca ganaran una chica si vives en la casa de mamá y papá." Y las chicas aprenden desde pequeña que un hombre no debe vivir con sus papás si vale una cita. (El enlace en la version ingles contiene una foto de un listado de treinta reglas para un novio. La cuarta es "no vivir con padres." Ese listado esta escrito por dos niñas de 6 y 9 años.) Yo vivia con mis papás hasta que vine a Guatemala a los 25 años, y mi mamá habia mencionada la idea de pagar renta mas de una vez.
Pero este "estandar" estadounidense me tiene confundida. Una generacion mas grande ayuda a asegurar que la siguiente se porta bien. La posibilidad de actuar irresponsable es menos porque casi siempre hay supervision. Gastos compartidos son gastos mas pequeños. No tiene que pagar pagos de dos casas, dos conexiones de internet, dos recibos electricos (aunque el uno seria un poco mas costoso, pero menos que los dos), etc. Tambien, mientras que yo estaba comprando un rodillo de cocina el otro dia, me hizo pensar en mi vida con mis papás. Mis papás tiene un rodillo de cocina; no sé si mi hermano tiene uno o no, pero cuando nuestros papás se mueren, que pasara con su rodillo de cocina? Ya no lo necesito; tengo el mio. Entonces, vivir aparte de su propia familia crea consumerismo innecesario lo cual es muy bueno cuando uno tiene dinero extra para gastar porque ayuda a la economia, pero para un joven o recien casados, es un gasto ilogico; necesitan ahorrar para construir su futuro o pasar tiempo juntos o lo que sea...o en cosas que tienen vidas cortas (en comparasion a los rodillos de cocina) como computadoras o carros o lavadoras.
Finalmente, hay el hecho simple que personas viviendo en grupos grandes es mas eficiente y efectivo que vivir en grupos pequeños (o solo). Una pareja joven tendran los consejos y apoyo de generaciones previas. Tal vez la vista de la abuela ya no esta suficiente para coser o tejer, y tal vez ya no aguanta estar parado por el fuego cocinando, pero puede cuidar al bebe. Entonces, ¿porque en lugar de ponerla en un hogar para ancianos, no la dejamos seguir con un lugar util y valoroso en la sociedad? Ella recibira sus comidas de personas quienes la conocen y la quieren, y ella cuidara a sus hijos y contarles las historias de tiempos pasados. Y cuando, por fin, ella no puede contribuir nada a la familia, todos la cuidaran como ella los cuidó cuando eran bebes, todavia demasiado pequeños para contribuir nada.
Yo no diria que mis papás me quieren menos que los papás de mi novio quieren a él; solo que ellos lo expresan diferente. Pero los gastos excesivos en personas jovenes en combinacion con la falta de apoyo hace la vida innecesariamente dificil.
There is something about US culture which I might have not noticed if my boyfriend hadn't brought it up. He asked me, "How can parents care more for other people than their own children?" (This is, of course, his way of looking at it as a Guatemalan.) You see, here in Guatemala, it is common for children to live with their parents, their grandparents, their great-grandparents, whoever.
In the United States at 18 to 20 years of age, it is common to shoo one's own children out of the house, to make them live on their own. We call it "growing up." In reality, it's "sink or swim," and if they don't swim? This is an even bigger problem with the male population. They are constantly bombarded with a cultural stigma which tells them "You'll never get a girl if you live at mom and dad's house." And girls are told that a guy should not live with his parents if he's going to be "date-able." (They start believing this very young.) I lived with my folks until I came to Guatemala at the age of 25, and my mother had mentioned the idea of me paying rent more than once.
However, this US cultural "standard" has me baffled. An older generation present helps to keep their kids in line. The possibility of acting irresponsibly is lessened because there is almost always supervision. Shared expenses are lessened expenses. You don't need two housing payments, two internet hook-ups, two electric bills (although the one would be higher than usual, but not equal to two), etc. Also, as I was buying a rolling pin the other day, it made me think about life with my folks. My parents have a rolling pin; I don't know if my brother does or not, but when our parents pass on, what will happen to their rolling pin? I don't need it anymore; I have my own. So, living away from one's family creates more unnecessary consumerism which, is really great when one has extra money to spend because it helps the economy, but for a young single person or a young couple, it's pointless spending. Young singles don't need to spend money on stuff like rolling pins; they need to save it to build a future or spend time together or whatever else...or on things that have a short life (in comparison to rolling pins) such as computers or cars or washing machines.
Finally, there is the simple fact that people living in large groups is more effective and efficient than small groups (or alone). A young couple will have the advice and assistance of previous generations. Perhaps grandma's eyesight isn't good enough to weave or sew, and perhaps she can't stand over the fire cooking anymore, but she can rock the baby. So, why, in place of shutting her away in a nursing home somewhere, don't we let her continue to serve a useful and valuable place in society? She will receive her meals from people who know her and love her, and she will watch their children and pass on stories of times gone by. And when, at last, she is no longer able to contribute anything to the family, they will care for her as she did for her children when they were babies, still too little to contribute anything.
I wouldn't say that my parents care for me any less than my boyfriend's parents care for him; they simply express it differently. However, the excessive spending heaped on young people combined with the lack of support makes life unnecessarily difficult.
************
Hay algo de la cultura de los EE.UU. que tal vez no habia logrado notar sino por mi novio. Él me preguntó, "¿Como pueden papás alla quieren mas para otras personas que sus propios hijos?" Aqui en Guatemala, es muy comun que hijos viven con sus padres, sus abuelos, sus bisabuelos, quien sea.
En los EE.UU. a los 18 o 20 años, es comun sacar sus propios hijos de la casa, hacerles vivir solos. Lo llamamos "madurando." En realidad, es "hundir o nadar," ¿y si no naden? Es un problema mas grande con la poblacion masculina. Siempre estan atacados con un estigma cultural que les dice "Nunca ganaran una chica si vives en la casa de mamá y papá." Y las chicas aprenden desde pequeña que un hombre no debe vivir con sus papás si vale una cita. (El enlace en la version ingles contiene una foto de un listado de treinta reglas para un novio. La cuarta es "no vivir con padres." Ese listado esta escrito por dos niñas de 6 y 9 años.) Yo vivia con mis papás hasta que vine a Guatemala a los 25 años, y mi mamá habia mencionada la idea de pagar renta mas de una vez.
Pero este "estandar" estadounidense me tiene confundida. Una generacion mas grande ayuda a asegurar que la siguiente se porta bien. La posibilidad de actuar irresponsable es menos porque casi siempre hay supervision. Gastos compartidos son gastos mas pequeños. No tiene que pagar pagos de dos casas, dos conexiones de internet, dos recibos electricos (aunque el uno seria un poco mas costoso, pero menos que los dos), etc. Tambien, mientras que yo estaba comprando un rodillo de cocina el otro dia, me hizo pensar en mi vida con mis papás. Mis papás tiene un rodillo de cocina; no sé si mi hermano tiene uno o no, pero cuando nuestros papás se mueren, que pasara con su rodillo de cocina? Ya no lo necesito; tengo el mio. Entonces, vivir aparte de su propia familia crea consumerismo innecesario lo cual es muy bueno cuando uno tiene dinero extra para gastar porque ayuda a la economia, pero para un joven o recien casados, es un gasto ilogico; necesitan ahorrar para construir su futuro o pasar tiempo juntos o lo que sea...o en cosas que tienen vidas cortas (en comparasion a los rodillos de cocina) como computadoras o carros o lavadoras.
Finalmente, hay el hecho simple que personas viviendo en grupos grandes es mas eficiente y efectivo que vivir en grupos pequeños (o solo). Una pareja joven tendran los consejos y apoyo de generaciones previas. Tal vez la vista de la abuela ya no esta suficiente para coser o tejer, y tal vez ya no aguanta estar parado por el fuego cocinando, pero puede cuidar al bebe. Entonces, ¿porque en lugar de ponerla en un hogar para ancianos, no la dejamos seguir con un lugar util y valoroso en la sociedad? Ella recibira sus comidas de personas quienes la conocen y la quieren, y ella cuidara a sus hijos y contarles las historias de tiempos pasados. Y cuando, por fin, ella no puede contribuir nada a la familia, todos la cuidaran como ella los cuidó cuando eran bebes, todavia demasiado pequeños para contribuir nada.
Yo no diria que mis papás me quieren menos que los papás de mi novio quieren a él; solo que ellos lo expresan diferente. Pero los gastos excesivos en personas jovenes en combinacion con la falta de apoyo hace la vida innecesariamente dificil.
Friday, March 22, 2013
Learning to Speak (Day 884)
I don't usually ask for money directly; however, I'm searching for donations to help me learn
Kaqchikel. The cost of classes here in Antigua is $250/week (6 hours
per day, 5 days per week) or $200/week (3.5 hours per day, 5 days per
week). The former obviously appeals to me more due to the value
(hours/$). I am theoretically only looking at 1 month of intensive
classes, and then using my Kaqchikel to communicate with everyone around
me (who speaks it) in order to further
solidify it. Anyone have $1k to help me become trilingual and better
serve the people I'm here to serve?
Normalmente, no pido dinero directamente, pero estoy buscando donacions para ayudarme aprender Kaqchikel. El precio en Antigua es $250/semana (6 horas/dia, 5 dias/semana) o $200/semana (3.5 horas/dia, 5 dias/semana). El primero obviamente me parece mucho mas por el valor (horas/$). En teoria, solo estoy viendo un mes de clases intensivos y dispues usando mi Kaqchikel para comunicarme con todos (quienes lo hablan) a mi alrededor para permanecerlo en mi cerebro. Alguien tiene mil dolares para ayudarme ser trilingue y servir mejor a la gente?
Normalmente, no pido dinero directamente, pero estoy buscando donacions para ayudarme aprender Kaqchikel. El precio en Antigua es $250/semana (6 horas/dia, 5 dias/semana) o $200/semana (3.5 horas/dia, 5 dias/semana). El primero obviamente me parece mucho mas por el valor (horas/$). En teoria, solo estoy viendo un mes de clases intensivos y dispues usando mi Kaqchikel para comunicarme con todos (quienes lo hablan) a mi alrededor para permanecerlo en mi cerebro. Alguien tiene mil dolares para ayudarme ser trilingue y servir mejor a la gente?
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
With Liberty and Justice for...well, not you. (Day 532)
(Para leer en español, siga hasta la mitad.)
The United States of America means something different to every person. To many children growing up in Guatemala, it is this country of opportunity--opportunity to get the best education, opportunity to buy the latest technology at the lowest prices, opportunity to experience snow--which they will never be able to legally visit. In fact, this idea that the United States is unreachable legally is the reason that many don't bother trying to go legally.
To me, growing up in the United States, it obviously meant something quite different. It was a country of freedom and equality, innocent until proven guilty, everyone has an opportunity to succeed, and--maybe more than anything else--a melting pot of cultures. Through my life, I have heard of injustices done by the United States (some which have struck Guatemala quite hard), but I had never actually experienced an injustice by the United States until today.
Today, Edgar--the young man whom I have written about--was denied a visa to visit the United States.
If I may borrow a few lines from some well-written writers: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Wait, what? All men are created equal. The "Americans" were saying "We're equal to the British." So, if you don't mind, please tell me why a Guatemalan should be treated differently? As an American, I can travel to almost ANY country I want without having to apply for anything in advance. I simply have to buy a plane ticket and go. And the majority of countries that I actually do need to apply for something, it's a simple matter of informing the government of that country that I wish to go, and I'm granted the right to go there.
Now, forgive me because I've always done poorly with history, but I'm pretty sure there was some Monroe Doctrine written in the 1820s that basically told the rest of Europe to stay out of the Western Hemisphere, that their oppression wasn't wanted here. Does that give the United States the freedom to oppress these people? Oh, in case you're wondering what definition I'm using of "oppression," I'm pretty much pulling those "inalienable rights" from the paragraph above. Anyone (or any government) which does not allow people the rights "endowed by their Creator" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is oppressive. What is happiness? To my friend Edgar, it was (is) to visit the United States, to see where I grew up, to meet my friends, and to attend the wedding of our friend Christina. That was (is) what he wanted (wants).
I would now like to present two conflicting legal ideas in the United States (again, forgive me as I didn't study law either): Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat and Immigration and Nationality Act section 214(b). Now, seeing as I doubt many of you have studied Latin or are familiar with INA 214(b), I'll give you a brief overview of each. You are all familiar with "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" as "Innocent until proven guilty." INA 214(b) is as follows: "Every alien shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)." Or, as I read it, "Guilty of illegal immigration without any proof or fair trial." If you asked a jury--considering all "evidence" that was presented--Edgar could not be found guilty of this non-crime which he didn't and wouldn't commit.
In conjunction with this, I would like to address the $140 non-refundable application fee. That's completely ridiculous considering the US's completely discriminatory policy on giving visas.
So, to the United States of America, I only have this to say: Any faith I had left in you or your legal system has just failed. Any confidence I had in you has just been lost. What some immigration officer in the US Embassy in Guatemala did today has confirmed that the United States of America is an egotistical and racist country who one day is going to run into a lot of problems and not have anyone to turn to for help. Don't you get it? You "help" (interfere) with other countries and ignore your own people. And then when you do bother to pay attention to their needs, you have no clue what they want because the "ruling elite" of the United States is so out of touch with the common man. Fix yourself...please...for the good of everyone.
And, as a final note, I am proud to be an American, to be a member of a country where I am allowed to tell the government that it has serious problems with its policies at home and abroad, to be a member of a country which allows me to travel quite freely to countries where there are people much better than ourselves (as a country).
_____________________________________________________________________
Los EE.UU. significa algo diferente para cada persona. Para muchos niños, creciendo en Guatemala, es un pais de oportunidades--oportunidades para recibir la mejor de educacion, oportunidades para comprar la tecnologia de moda con los precios mas baratos, oportunidades para tocar la nieve--que nunca podran a visitar legalmente. En verdad, esta idea que ir a los EE.UU. legalmente no sera posible es la razon que muchos no intentan irse legal.
Para mi, creciendo en los EE.UU., es obviamente algo muy diferente. Era un pais de liberted y igualdad, innocente hasta demostrado culpable, todos tienen la oportunidad para triunfar, y--talvez mas que todo--una gran mezcla de culturas. Durante mi vida, he escuchado de injusticias hecho por los Estados Unidos (unas que han afectado a Guatemala mucho), pero nunca habia estado afectado personalmente por las injusticias de los Estados Unidos hasta el dia de hoy.
Hoy, los EE. UU. denego una visa visitante a Edgar, el joven de quien he escrito.
Si puedo prestar unas palabras de autores buenos: Sostenemos como evidentes por sí mismas dichas verdades: que todos los hombres son creados iguales; que son dotados por su creador de ciertos derechos inalienables; que entre estos están la vida, la libertad y la búsqueda de la felicidad. Espere, que? Todos los hombres son creados iguales. Los "estadounidenses" estaban diciendo "Somos iguales con los ingleses." Pues, si no le molesta, por favor explica a mi porque un guatemalteco debe estar tratado diferente? Como una estadounidensa, puedo viajar a casi qualquier pais que quiero sin solicitacion. Unicamente tengo que comprar un boleto de avion y ir. Y para la mayoria de los paises con quien necesito una solicitud, es solamente un aviso al gobierno de este pais que quiero visitarle, y me dan permiso.
Ahora tengo que pedir perdon porque la historia me costo, pero creo que habia algun "Monroe Doctrine" escrito en los 1820s que mas o menos dijo a todo europa que "alejense de el hemisfero oeste," que su opresión no era bienvenida aca. Eso dio la derecha a los Estados Unidos que pueden oprimir estas personas? Si quieren saber cual definicion de "opresión" que estoy usando, estoy halando los "derechos inalienables" del parafo anterior. Alguien (o cualquier gobierno) que no permite gente los derechos "dotados por su creador" que son "la vida, la libertad, y la búsqueda de la felicidad" es opresivo. Que es la felicidad? Para mi amigo Edgar, era (es) visitar a los Estados Unidos, ver donde yo creci, conocer a mis amigos, y asistir a la boda de nuestra amiga Christina. Eso era (es) lo que el queria (quiere).
Ahora quiero presentar dos ideas legales contrapuestos en los EE.UU. (otra vez, pido perdon porque no estudie derechos tampoco): Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat y Ley de Inmigración y Nacionalidad ("INA," en ingles) seccion 214(b). No creo que muchos de ustedes han estudiado latin ni conocen INA 214(b), entonces, les doy un resumen de cada uno. Creo que todo conocen a "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" como "presunción de inocencia," un principio jurídico penal que establece la inocencia de la persona como regla. INA 214(b) es como asi: "Cada extranjero estara presumido ser inmigrante hasta establezca a la satisfecha del agente consular, en el momento de aplicacion de la visa, y los agentes inmigraciones, en el momento de admision, que tiene derecho para una visa no-inmigrante por seccion 101(a)(15)." O como yo lo leo, "culpable de inmigracion ilegal sin prueba o proceso justo." Si preguntaria un jurado--con toda la evidencia que era presentado--no puede establecer la culpa de Edgar para este no-delito que no ha cometido y no cometeria.
Juntamente con esto, quiero mencionar el $140 tasa de solicitud no-reembolosa. Eso es completamente ridiculo con la politica descriminatoria de los EE.UU. sobre la entrega de visas visitantes.
En conclusion, a los EE.UU., tengo solo esto que decir: El poco fe que todavia tenia en ti o tu sistema legal ahora ha fallado. La poca confianza que tenia en ti ahora has perdido. Lo que algun agente consular en la embajada de los EE.UU. en Guatemala hecho hoy ha confirmado que los Estados Unidos de America es un pais egoisto y racisto quien un dia va a encontrar muchos problemas y no tener nadie para ayudarles. No entiendes? Tu "ayudas" (interferes) a otros paises y no pones atencion a tu propia gente. Y cuando, por fin, pones atencion a sus necesidades, no tienes una idea que quieren porque el "elite en el poder" de los EE.UU. no conoce el hombre comun. Arreglarte...por favor...por lo bien de todos.
Y, como un punto final, estoy orgullosa para ser una estadounidensa, para ser una miembra de un pais donde tengo permiso a decir el gobierno que tiene problemas muy graves con sus politicos alla y aca, para ser miembra de un pais que me permita viajar con libertad a otros paises donde hay gente mucho mejor que nosotros (como un pais).
The United States of America means something different to every person. To many children growing up in Guatemala, it is this country of opportunity--opportunity to get the best education, opportunity to buy the latest technology at the lowest prices, opportunity to experience snow--which they will never be able to legally visit. In fact, this idea that the United States is unreachable legally is the reason that many don't bother trying to go legally.
To me, growing up in the United States, it obviously meant something quite different. It was a country of freedom and equality, innocent until proven guilty, everyone has an opportunity to succeed, and--maybe more than anything else--a melting pot of cultures. Through my life, I have heard of injustices done by the United States (some which have struck Guatemala quite hard), but I had never actually experienced an injustice by the United States until today.
Today, Edgar--the young man whom I have written about--was denied a visa to visit the United States.
If I may borrow a few lines from some well-written writers: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Wait, what? All men are created equal. The "Americans" were saying "We're equal to the British." So, if you don't mind, please tell me why a Guatemalan should be treated differently? As an American, I can travel to almost ANY country I want without having to apply for anything in advance. I simply have to buy a plane ticket and go. And the majority of countries that I actually do need to apply for something, it's a simple matter of informing the government of that country that I wish to go, and I'm granted the right to go there.
Now, forgive me because I've always done poorly with history, but I'm pretty sure there was some Monroe Doctrine written in the 1820s that basically told the rest of Europe to stay out of the Western Hemisphere, that their oppression wasn't wanted here. Does that give the United States the freedom to oppress these people? Oh, in case you're wondering what definition I'm using of "oppression," I'm pretty much pulling those "inalienable rights" from the paragraph above. Anyone (or any government) which does not allow people the rights "endowed by their Creator" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is oppressive. What is happiness? To my friend Edgar, it was (is) to visit the United States, to see where I grew up, to meet my friends, and to attend the wedding of our friend Christina. That was (is) what he wanted (wants).
I would now like to present two conflicting legal ideas in the United States (again, forgive me as I didn't study law either): Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat and Immigration and Nationality Act section 214(b). Now, seeing as I doubt many of you have studied Latin or are familiar with INA 214(b), I'll give you a brief overview of each. You are all familiar with "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" as "Innocent until proven guilty." INA 214(b) is as follows: "Every alien shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, and the immigration officers, at the time of application for admission, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)." Or, as I read it, "Guilty of illegal immigration without any proof or fair trial." If you asked a jury--considering all "evidence" that was presented--Edgar could not be found guilty of this non-crime which he didn't and wouldn't commit.
In conjunction with this, I would like to address the $140 non-refundable application fee. That's completely ridiculous considering the US's completely discriminatory policy on giving visas.
So, to the United States of America, I only have this to say: Any faith I had left in you or your legal system has just failed. Any confidence I had in you has just been lost. What some immigration officer in the US Embassy in Guatemala did today has confirmed that the United States of America is an egotistical and racist country who one day is going to run into a lot of problems and not have anyone to turn to for help. Don't you get it? You "help" (interfere) with other countries and ignore your own people. And then when you do bother to pay attention to their needs, you have no clue what they want because the "ruling elite" of the United States is so out of touch with the common man. Fix yourself...please...for the good of everyone.
And, as a final note, I am proud to be an American, to be a member of a country where I am allowed to tell the government that it has serious problems with its policies at home and abroad, to be a member of a country which allows me to travel quite freely to countries where there are people much better than ourselves (as a country).
_____________________________________________________________________
Los EE.UU. significa algo diferente para cada persona. Para muchos niños, creciendo en Guatemala, es un pais de oportunidades--oportunidades para recibir la mejor de educacion, oportunidades para comprar la tecnologia de moda con los precios mas baratos, oportunidades para tocar la nieve--que nunca podran a visitar legalmente. En verdad, esta idea que ir a los EE.UU. legalmente no sera posible es la razon que muchos no intentan irse legal.
Para mi, creciendo en los EE.UU., es obviamente algo muy diferente. Era un pais de liberted y igualdad, innocente hasta demostrado culpable, todos tienen la oportunidad para triunfar, y--talvez mas que todo--una gran mezcla de culturas. Durante mi vida, he escuchado de injusticias hecho por los Estados Unidos (unas que han afectado a Guatemala mucho), pero nunca habia estado afectado personalmente por las injusticias de los Estados Unidos hasta el dia de hoy.
Hoy, los EE. UU. denego una visa visitante a Edgar, el joven de quien he escrito.
Si puedo prestar unas palabras de autores buenos: Sostenemos como evidentes por sí mismas dichas verdades: que todos los hombres son creados iguales; que son dotados por su creador de ciertos derechos inalienables; que entre estos están la vida, la libertad y la búsqueda de la felicidad. Espere, que? Todos los hombres son creados iguales. Los "estadounidenses" estaban diciendo "Somos iguales con los ingleses." Pues, si no le molesta, por favor explica a mi porque un guatemalteco debe estar tratado diferente? Como una estadounidensa, puedo viajar a casi qualquier pais que quiero sin solicitacion. Unicamente tengo que comprar un boleto de avion y ir. Y para la mayoria de los paises con quien necesito una solicitud, es solamente un aviso al gobierno de este pais que quiero visitarle, y me dan permiso.
Ahora tengo que pedir perdon porque la historia me costo, pero creo que habia algun "Monroe Doctrine" escrito en los 1820s que mas o menos dijo a todo europa que "alejense de el hemisfero oeste," que su opresión no era bienvenida aca. Eso dio la derecha a los Estados Unidos que pueden oprimir estas personas? Si quieren saber cual definicion de "opresión" que estoy usando, estoy halando los "derechos inalienables" del parafo anterior. Alguien (o cualquier gobierno) que no permite gente los derechos "dotados por su creador" que son "la vida, la libertad, y la búsqueda de la felicidad" es opresivo. Que es la felicidad? Para mi amigo Edgar, era (es) visitar a los Estados Unidos, ver donde yo creci, conocer a mis amigos, y asistir a la boda de nuestra amiga Christina. Eso era (es) lo que el queria (quiere).
Ahora quiero presentar dos ideas legales contrapuestos en los EE.UU. (otra vez, pido perdon porque no estudie derechos tampoco): Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat y Ley de Inmigración y Nacionalidad ("INA," en ingles) seccion 214(b). No creo que muchos de ustedes han estudiado latin ni conocen INA 214(b), entonces, les doy un resumen de cada uno. Creo que todo conocen a "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" como "presunción de inocencia," un principio jurídico penal que establece la inocencia de la persona como regla. INA 214(b) es como asi: "Cada extranjero estara presumido ser inmigrante hasta establezca a la satisfecha del agente consular, en el momento de aplicacion de la visa, y los agentes inmigraciones, en el momento de admision, que tiene derecho para una visa no-inmigrante por seccion 101(a)(15)." O como yo lo leo, "culpable de inmigracion ilegal sin prueba o proceso justo." Si preguntaria un jurado--con toda la evidencia que era presentado--no puede establecer la culpa de Edgar para este no-delito que no ha cometido y no cometeria.
Juntamente con esto, quiero mencionar el $140 tasa de solicitud no-reembolosa. Eso es completamente ridiculo con la politica descriminatoria de los EE.UU. sobre la entrega de visas visitantes.
En conclusion, a los EE.UU., tengo solo esto que decir: El poco fe que todavia tenia en ti o tu sistema legal ahora ha fallado. La poca confianza que tenia en ti ahora has perdido. Lo que algun agente consular en la embajada de los EE.UU. en Guatemala hecho hoy ha confirmado que los Estados Unidos de America es un pais egoisto y racisto quien un dia va a encontrar muchos problemas y no tener nadie para ayudarles. No entiendes? Tu "ayudas" (interferes) a otros paises y no pones atencion a tu propia gente. Y cuando, por fin, pones atencion a sus necesidades, no tienes una idea que quieren porque el "elite en el poder" de los EE.UU. no conoce el hombre comun. Arreglarte...por favor...por lo bien de todos.
Y, como un punto final, estoy orgullosa para ser una estadounidensa, para ser una miembra de un pais donde tengo permiso a decir el gobierno que tiene problemas muy graves con sus politicos alla y aca, para ser miembra de un pais que me permita viajar con libertad a otros paises donde hay gente mucho mejor que nosotros (como un pais).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)