RECENTLY, the Filipino community was abuzz as news spread about a 63-year old woman who was allegedly detained and harassed by US immigration officers for six hours at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.
The traveler, retired Asian Development Bank employee Cariza Yonzon Grande, was on her 13th trip to the United States in a span of over two and a half decades. She was supposed to attend the wedding of her daughter and visit her grandson. Instead, Grande was allegedly detained without food and water, and was supposedly subjected to racial slurs before ultimately being deported back to the Philippines.
In a television statement, Grande claimed that upon reaching the immigration section of the airport, she was asked the “usual questions” about her purpose of travel, length of stay, and other pertinent details.
Throughout the questioning, and despite Grande’s explanations, officials allegedly insisted that the she was a “TNT,” the a colloquial term among Filipinos, referring to someone who will enter the United States as an undocumented immigrant, and evade subsequent capture and deportation by literally hiding and staying out of sight or “tago nang tago.” Officers claim was bolstered when they spoke with Grande’s 90-year old aunt who told them that her niece is set to be their caregiver.
Eventually, Grande was given two options: to go back to the Philippines on the next flight on the same day or be put in jail and be barred from entering the US for five years. She chose the former.
These allegations of discrimination makes it understandable that Filipino netizens voiced out their frustration on the case of Grande.
But despite the grave conditions of the case, Filipinos should not be quick to pass judgment on the deportation of Grande. As immigration lawyer Lou Tancinco pointed out in a television program, Grande’s travel history could have played a part in her selection for secondary screening.
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) issued a memo in 2010, detailing several “countries of interest” and “countries designated as a state sponsor of terrorism” as potential causes of a red-flag at the immigration screenings.
However, upon an initial cross-referencing, Grande’s travel records does not match with any of the countries identified by the TSA. And unfortunately, due to the federal government shutdown, TSA’s website could not be accessed for a more updated version of the list.
Filipinos should also keep an open mind and remember that the US immigration officer who sent Grande to secondary screening was just doing his or her job of identifying red-flags of foreign nationals based on their travel records.
As for the interrogators who supposedly subjected Grande to racial profiling and discrimination, they can still be implicated in a formal complaint. According to Tancinco, Grande can always file a complaint or seek a redress with Homeland Security.
“It is expected that Homeland Security officer[s] conduct their interviews and examinations with utmost professionalism and courtesy,” Tancinco said.
In the end, the only detail that can break this case wide open is the conversation between Grande’s 90-year old aunt and the immigration officers. While Grande maintained that it was impossible for her aunt to actually tell the officers that she will become a caregiver, she was not in the same room with the officers when that conversation took place. There is still the remote possibility that the aunt may have let slip a minor detail that could have caught the attention of the zealous immigration officials.
But for now, as Grande files another application for a US visa and as the DFA promises to extend their assistance, we can only wait and see how the US Homeland Security and United States Embassy in Manila respond to this situation.
(AJPress)
