It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
After a troubling summer marked by Ceuta's crisis, EU countries are scrambling to find solutions for migration management. The reintroduction of border checks, deportation centres outside the bloc, and redistribution of migrants will feature in a heated debate this autumn.
Migration is taking center stage again in the European Union, as Brussels returns to work after a summer marked by the major crisis of recent years.
Over 70,000 irregular migrants entered the Spanish exclave of Ceuta in a single day on 30 July, more than all other irregular entries across all European borders so far in 2026, sparking a political crisis in Spain and putting other member states on alert.
The Ceuta crisis increased pressure on the EU to implement its strategy to tighten the rules for asylum seekers and speed up returns, but it also highlighted the shortcomings of the new migration rules as they face their first real stress test.
EU leaders are expected to debate the topic in October at the European Council in Brussels, the culmination of a season of heated discussions through formal and informal meetings of interior ministers and ambassadors.
Schengen in trouble
The first impact of the domino effect was on free movement within the EU.
After the Ceuta crisis, Italy reintroduced air and maritime border controls with Spain for a month, while other countries such as Denmark and Finland called for Spain to be temporarily suspended from the Schengen area, where citizens and residents have been able to move since 1985 without border checks.
Spain answered with a mirror retaliatory measure towards Italy, even copy-pasting the wording of the official notification, reintroducing border checks until 7 September. At the end of the month, both countries decided to extend the suspension for further 15 days.
And the Italian government is not the only one concerned that Schengen rules could indirectly benefit irregular movement.
In an extraordinary online meeting in Brussels in early August, EU interior ministers initiated a discussion over the future of free movement. Twenty-two governments stated that any "necessary measures" will be taken into account "to safeguard public order and address risks arising from secondary movements [of migrants]", envisaging a wider reinforcement or reintroduction of border controls.
"The Schengen system has become one of the main victims of the internal political dynamics and concerns by member states around migration," Davide Colombi, researcher on migration at Brussels-based think tank CEPS, told Euronews.
EU member states may unilaterally reintroduce temporary, ad hoc border checks at their borders for a period of up to six months — renewable up to two years — on security grounds.
Currently, nine EU countries — Germany, Spain, Italy, Denmark, Austria, the Netherlands, Poland, France and Sweden — plus Norway have temporarily reintroduced border controls, citing concerns over irregular migration or terrorism threats.
Member states started to retain their own border controls in 2015, with the so-called European refugee crisis, as the removal of internal checks within the EU is widely considered to be closely intertwined with the surveillance of external borders.
"Migration will have broad repercussions on internal movements. For the moment, the Commission is choosing diplomatic ways rather than enforcing EU law and challenging the reintroduction of border checks," Colombi said.
Relate
Where is the solidarity?
Far from expressing solidarity, other EU countries accused Pedro Sánchez’s government, in the aftermath of the mass entry, of failing to sufficiently protect Europe’s external borders.
Solidarity is — on paper — one of the pillars of the new EU migration rules, which entered into force on 12 June.
The EU Migration and Asylum Pact entails a mandatory mechanism to assist the EU's frontline members, through a “solidarity pool” that defines the help countries need to offer each other for the following year. Member states have to choose among relocating a number of asylum seekers to their territory, paying a financial contribution, or financing personnel and other operational costs.
Redistribution of migrants across Europe is the most contentious point, as governments have little appetite for it and have managed to significantly reduce the numbers in the pool for 2026, asking for exemptions.
Relocations only apply to asylum seekers and people who have already been granted protection, therefore excluding most of the irregular Moroccan migrants who entered Ceuta in July, who have been or are set to be returned to their country of origin.
However, Spain is among the countries considered "under migratory pressure" because of last year's arrivals and will benefit from help this year. A total of 8,878 migrants who have applied for asylum in Spain, Italy, Greece, Cyprus and Malta will be taken in by other countries.
On the other hand, those countries will send back to frontline states the so-called "secondary movement" migrants — people who have entered the EU through a certain member state and then managed to move irregularly to another, asking for asylum there. According to EU rules, the first-entry country still has the responsibility to assess the request.
The first cracks are beginning to appear in the new solidarity system, as seven countries asked Italy to take back migrants and the Italian government invoked further compensation — which is not foreseen by EU rules — for migrants rescued at sea by NGO ships and disembarked on Italian shores.
A bilateral meeting between Italian Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi and German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt in early September will kick off the debate on solidarity, which is set to continue at the Home Affairs Council at the beginning of October.
The crucial point will be the definition of the solidarity pool for 2027, which could see Italy and Spain on the same side, asking for more contributions from other countries after a summer of diplomatic spats between Rome and Madrid.
A key part of the EU strategy on migration concerns the return of irregular migrants, through a new regulation finalised last June and considered the strictest ever.
It introduces the possibility for member states to send people to a country with which they have no direct or indirect connection, provided that there is a bilateral agreement to set up deportation centres in the non-EU country.
These "return hubs" can be either places of transit, where a person is placed while waiting to be returned to their country of origin, or locations where a person is expected to stay with no guarantee of onward returns.
Some European governments are actively looking for partner countries, focusing on Asia and central Africa, intending to have the first partnership agreed by the end of the year, a diplomat told Euronews.
Germany, Austria, Denmark, Greece and the Netherlands are working together on this project and are reportedly in talks with Uganda and Rwanda. Immigration ministers from the five countries are due to take stock of progress at a meeting in Copenhagen on 4 September.
The five-country working group could pave the way for a new model at EU level, despite criticism from civil society, operational difficulties and possible legal challenges.
"So far, it's not quite clear who is responsible for the migrants in a return hub, how long they can remain there and who monitors their conditions and provides effective remedies in case of human rights violations," Colombi said, pointing out that the EU legislation is vague on purpose to give states a free hand.
"I think there will be legal cases against the hubs once they are implemented on the ground, with a risk of a complete dismissal by the Court, as it happened with the UK-Rwanda migration scheme," he said.
4.3 The Multitude against Empire. 393. Notes. 415. Index. 473. Page 11. PREFACE. Empire is materializing before our very eyes. Over the past several decades, as ...
Page 1. MULTITUDE. WAR AND DEMOCRACY. IN THE AGE OF EMPIRE. MICHAEL HARDT ... Empire calls on war for its legitimation, the multitude calls on democracy as its ...
Just as today's. Empire was formed in response to the insurgencies of the multitudes from below, so too, potentially, it could fall to them, as long as those.
Sunday, August 30, 2026
August Bebel’s death and the revival of socialism in prewar Japan
August 13 marked the 113th anniversary of the death of August Bebel, a great socialist, German Social Democratic Party (SPD) leader and the world’s first Marxist feminist. In Japan, the year 1913 when Bebel died, was a dark period known as the “Winter Era” for socialists. Two years earlier, the infamous High Treason Incident had occurred; with the exception of those already in prison, all leading socialist figures were arrested, and some such as Shūsui Kōtoku and Sugako Kan'no were executed as traitors. The media stoked fear of socialists, portraying them as vicious and treacherous criminals who had targeted the life of His Majesty the Emperor, a figure of absolute authority for all Japanese citizens.
However, this was also a time when a new current of Taishō democracy was taking shape. It was during this period that news broke of Bebel’s death. The German socialist leader's death and the media coverage surrounding it became a catalyst for Japan to emerge from its “Winter Era.” One might wonder how a politician’s death in distant Germany could spark the revival of socialism in this backward island nation. However, for the Japanese socialist movement — which had virtually no history of mass-based socialist parties, consisting of scattered individuals, small magazines and study groups — news of the socialist heavyweight’s passing provided a crucial opportunity to speak openly about socialism in Japan.
Many bourgeois newspapers, including major dailies, reported on his death in their August 15 editions (the same date that the Emperor’s broadcast accepting the Potsdam Declaration was aired 32 years later). The Tokyo Asahi Shimbun interviewed Sen Katayama at his home. Katayama had been released from prison the previous year under a general amnesty granted upon Emperor Taishō’s accession. Based on that interview, the paper published an article, “Passing of a Socialist Leader: Remarks by Sen Katayama, the Labor Party’s Valiant General.”1
In 1904, amid the Russo-Japanese War, Katayama became famous for shaking hands with Russian Marxist Georgi Plekhanov at the Second International Congress in Amsterdam in demonstration of their opposition to the war. He met Bebel at that congress and whenever there was a conflict between the Bebel faction (revolutionary) and the Jaurès faction (reformist), Katayama consistently supported Bebel. Katayama’s autobiography states that during the congress, he dined with Bebel and other congress leaders on numerous occasions.2 It was therefore appropriate for the Asahi reporter to have sought comment from Katayama, one of the few Japanese individuals to have had direct contact with Bebel.
The relationship between Bebel and his Woman and Socialism is so inseparable that the two are practically synonymous. Katayama briefly touched on this at the end of his obituary, noting, “Among his works is a book titled Woman in the Past and Present, which discusses the woman question from a socialist perspective. This is a world-renowned book.” Since Bebel’s book had also been published under the title Woman in the Past, Present, and Future, Katayama was likely referring to this title.
Newspapers such as the Yomiuri Shimbun, Tokyo Nichinichi Shimbun and Osaka Mainichi Shimbun also reported on Bebel’s death. Among these obituaries, the longest and most in-depth was written by Tokuzō Fukuda, a professor at Keiō University. Having studied under Lujo Brentano, a leading figure of the German Historical School, and possessing a deep understanding of German socialism, he was another ideal person to write about Bebel. Furthermore, having heard Bebel’s great speech while attending a SPD convention as an observer, he was all the more suited to penning this memorial essay.
Over the course of three days, August 18–20, he wrote a memorial series, “Bebel is Dead,” in the Jiji Shinpō, a daily newspaper founded by Yukichi Fukuzawa and one of Japan’s five major daily newspapers, alongside the Asahi, Yomiuri, Osaka Mainichi, and Hōchi. Publishing three consecutive, extremely favourable editorials about a revolutionary socialist in such an influential newspaper was unprecedented in Japan's history. This essay was later included in his book Essays on Economics. The below quote is taken from this version.
The essay begins with the following passage:
Since August Bebel was born in 1840, he turned 74 this year, making him roughly the same age as the economists Wagner and Schmoller. Now that Professor Schmoller has retired from the University of Berlin and it is reported that Professor Wagner also intends to retire soon, the news of the passing of Mr. Bebel — a worthy adversary and a grand elder statesman of the Social Democratic Party — stirs profound emotion in us, younger scholars.3
Following this introductory passage, Fukuda traced Bebel’s background in detail. He discussed how Bebel, despite being a socialist of working-class origin rather than an academic, rose to become SPD leader through his energy and indomitable spirit. He went on to comment on Bebel’s Woman as follows:
Yet, among social democrats around the world, no book is as widely read as his. People often refer to Marx’s Capital as the “Bible of socialism,” but this is a profoundly mistaken notion; Capital is not like a Bible. Like Buddhist sutras, it is an extremely difficult and obscure text that is not easily understood by anyone who reads it; moreover, it lacks coherence and is, as a whole, extremely flawed and incomplete. To call this a “Bible” is, after all, the idle talk of someone who has never even held Capital in their hands. If socialism has a Bible, it is not Marx’s Capital but rather Bebel’s book Woman and Socialism. While Capital has seen only a few editions to date, Woman and Socialism has now reached its fifty-second or fifty-third edition; by the time the fiftieth edition was published a few years ago, the original German edition alone had already sold 117,000 copies, and it has been translated into fourteen languages, each of which has also seen numerous editions (the English translation of Capital only saw the completion of its third volume a few years ago). There is simply no other work on socialism that has been read so widely throughout the world. Even if Mr. Bebel were to claim to have made no practical contribution to the movement whatsoever, the mere fact that he is the author of Woman and Socialism is more than enough to secure him an immortal place in history.4
Fukuda offered a glowing assessment of Bebel’s Woman. As discussed later, both Sen Katayama and Toshihiko Sakai took note of Fukuda’s obituary essay.
News of Bebel’s death came as a great shock to Japanese socialists. In September that year, they held a small memorial gathering for Bebel. As they could not do so openly, they secretly held it at a comrade’s home. Katayama described the event in his German article, “August Bebel in Japan,” which he contributed to the German Marxist theoretical journal Die Neue Zeit.
We held a memorial gathering for the late Comrade Bebel at the home where a certain comrade had lived during his stay in Tokyo. The fact that this was not publicly announced was because doing so would certainly have resulted in the event being banned. Comrade Toshihiko Sakai spoke at length, drawing on the English translation of Bebel’s memoirs, while Comrade Takahata translated several newspaper articles about Bebel and spoke about him. Comrade Daidō and this essay’s author [Katayama] spoke about their personal acquaintance with Bebel, as well as what they knew of him from their own experiences or from what they had observed and heard since the International Socialist Congress in Amsterdam. In this way, we Japanese paid our respects to the late socialist leader!5
The fact that the memorial gathering had to be held secretly at an individual's home speaks volumes about the political situation in Japan at the time. In this German-language article, Katayama specifically mentions Fukuda’s obituary: “In particular, the Jiji Shinpō published a long essay on Bebel’s life and work in three consecutive issues. The author was Professor Tokuzō Fukuda of Keio University.”6
Articles commemorating Bebel were also published in Gaikō Jihō [Diplomatic Review], Kokka Gakkai Zasshi [The Journal of the Association of Political and Social Sciences], Shin Seiki [New Century], and even Taiyō [The Sun]. Taiyō was Japan’s first full-fledged opinion magazine. Spurred by victory in the Sino-Japanese War, it was launched in 1895 with the aspiration to becoming a comprehensive opinion journal that could rival those of Europe and the United States. Each issue featured in-depth essays by leading intellectuals in Japan (including liberals and socialists).
The memorial article was written by Isoo Abe, a Christian socialist who was deeply knowledgeable about the woman question. Like Bebel, Abe was also a socialist advocate for the abolition of prostitution. Abe’s article, published in the December 1913 issue of Taiyō, was the longest memorial essay on Bebel published in Japanese media. Abe stressed Bebel’s historical significance as follows.
Starting out as a mere labourer, he rose to take the reins of the German Social Democratic Party and became a warrior whose every move immediately captured the world’s attention — and struck fear into its hearts — and whose passing was mourned with a ceremony of such grandeur that even kings and princes could not match it. This Bebel is truly a great figure produced by modern civilisation.7
Abe discussed Bebel’s life in detail, but referred to Bebel’s Woman only briefly at the end of his essay: “Bebel, who strove to rescue the working class from the oppression of the capitalist system, also fought to liberate women from the oppression of men.”8 It can therefore be said that Fukuda’s memorial essay, which focused on Bebel’s Woman, was truly outstanding.
Kindai Shisō [The Modern Thought], a socialist magazine that was barely managing to stay in print, also published several brief obituaries for Bebel. One was written by Toshihiko Sakai, a pioneer of Japanese socialism. As shown in the quote below, this obituary also referred to Fukuda’s tribute:
Japanese newspapers have also written quite a lot about Bebel’s passing. I, too, have a few things I’d like to say, but I cannot write them here. However, I see no harm in discussing just one of his works. The most famous of his books is Woman. The contents of this book are, for the most part, already well known among our circle. However, the 50th edition, published in 1909, includes significant new additions and revisions. Mr. Tokuzō Fukuda recently discussed this book specifically in the Jiji Shinpō. While Marx’s Capital is commonly referred to as the “Workers’ Bible,” it is far too difficult to read to serve as reading material for workers. He writes that Woman is far more deserving of the title “the workers’ Bible.” Although this book is titled Woman, its appeal lies in its plain explanation of the general trend of social evolution and, in particular, its vision of the character of a new society in the future. Both the original German edition and the English translation should be available at Maruzen [Maruzen is a Japanese bookseller specializing in Western books.].9
Sakai discussed Fukuda’s article, specifically mentioning his assessment of Bebel’s Woman, which would later have an unexpected impact on Japanese socialism. Among readers of this socialist journal was a young woman named Kikue Yamakawa, who later became a leading women’s rights activist in prewar Japan. After reading this article and becoming interested in Woman, Yamakawa read an English translation she found at a used bookstore in Kanda.10 This experience opened her eyes to socialist theories of women’s liberation.
Ten years later, in 1923, she published a translation of Bebel’s Woman.11 This was the first complete Japanese translation of the book (though several partial translations had been published earlier), and in all of East Asia, too. Consequently, when Woman was translated in South Korea and China, Kikue’s edition served as either a source text or reference work. In this way, the causal threads of history are intricately intertwined, even across national borders.
The various news reports surrounding Bebel’s death served as the first signal for the revival of socialism in prewar Japan. In the Neue Zeit essay discussed earlier, Katayama wrote: “Even in Japan, where socialism is so deeply despised, feared, and persecuted, it is clear that Bebel worked for our cause!”.12 In this way, the late Bebel contributed just as much to Japanese socialism as the living Bebel had.
Bebel, Fujin-ron [Woman], Ars, 1923. Kikue’s translation was subsequently published in 1929 as one of Kaizōsha’s paperback series; it sold just as well as the original German edition and became a major bestseller, reaching 50 printings in the prewar period alone.
The Department of Homeland Security’s ICE detention facility is shown in Jena, La., on Friday, March 21, 2025. (AP Photo/Stephen Smith)
What Led Up to the Detention
Alejandro came to the United States on a tourist visa in 2003, at age 10; Tennessee was home for 23 years. He started working in immigrant rights at age 18. He ran his own handyman business, which gave him a lot of freedom for work that mattered to him: organizing with the ICE Out of East Tennessee network. For instance, he watched for ICE activity and posted warnings about whether it was safe to drive down the street. “New people I meet ask me what I did for fun in Tennessee. That’s what me and my friends did,” he says.
Alejandro was on probation for a Schedule II substance conviction (Schedule II involves drugs with a high potential for abuse but recognized medical uses). He had arranged his probation so that after paying his court costs, he didn’t need to show up for supervised appointments. “So I thought it was very weird when my probation officer called me in for a check-in. I did text a few people to say where I was going and that I might get picked up. I probably should have texted more people,” he says.
On October 15, he went to the check-in. It turned out that ICE officers had reached out to Smith County and asked them to call him in for a check-in so they could “scoop him.” That’s what ICE did.
From Smith County, he was booked in Nashville, transported to Putnam, then moved to an airport facility in Nashville. He and others were flown to Alexandria, Louisiana, which is a transit point, not a real detention facility. People there wore their street clothes; Alexandria wasn’t set up for stays longer than two days. “It’s literally a place where ‘all right, you’re going to be here until we figure out where to put you or if you’re about to get deported.” From there, he was sent to Jena.
Alejandro had been on ICE’s radar since at least 2011, when he was detained briefly before his case was administratively closed under the Obama administration. “Which is why I was detained for so long, according to them, because it took that long to reopen my case and get me a court case.” Once he got put in front of a judge, he says, “it didn’t take but about a week and a half, two weeks to get me deported.”
Background on Jena
The Jena Detention Center is in the Fifth Circuit (covering Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi), the federal jurisdiction with the harshest laws in the US around detainees getting out. Alejandro met people sent to Jena from all over the country (North Carolina, New Orleans, Minnesota, Seattle).
“It seemed to me like the administration had just picked Jena as their favorite spot to send people to, even if that wasn’t geographically where they would usually go.” Sending people there as quickly as possible, regardless of where they’re from, so they can’t get out, is part of ICE’s engine for getting people deported no matter what, he says.
Who Was There and Why
Inside, Alejandro met people from Bosnia, Ukraine, Iran, Nepal, Palestine, Jordan, Laos, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, and Mexico. His best friend was P., from Nepal, who had been in Jena for over a year by the time Alejandro arrived. At the time of this interview, P. had been transferred to a detention center in Texas and, as far as Alejandro knew, was still detained.
His other close friend was A., from Iran, who owned gas stations and had a green card. ICE showed up at his house and took him anyway. A. had a team of lawyers and money to pay them. But A. was stuck in limbo, because the US wasn’t deporting people to Iran given the political situation. The same was true for a man from Palestine, who was super frustrated for the same reason: he had no country to be deported to and no clear path out of detention.
“Some people,” Alejandro says, “were in some type of metaphor, supposed to be deported, but can’t go to the country they’re supposed to go to—stuck in space.”
Alejandro was classified as mid-to-high risk, because he had a prior arrest, so he was placed in the “yellow/red building.” That area mainly houses people who had served significant time, in some cases 10 years, in federal prison before being transferred into immigration detention. They were just waiting out their immigration cases before being deported. Those men were often the most patient people inside. They’d already done real time, so they knew how to wait. The people who’d been picked up off the street with no prior incarceration were more fidgety, more desperate to do something, Alejandro says. “But all you could do is sit there and wait.”
Alejandro noticed that there wasn’t much of the judgment you might expect between those two groups, the people with criminal histories and the people who had just been living their lives when ICE picked them up. “It was a cool mix of people…I never encountered people from the street who were all judgy about people that weren’t from the street,” he says.
Life Inside Jena
Alejandro described the “pods” where people are housed, each one being a big room with about 50 bunk beds in seven rows. There was a guard station immediately inside the entrance, though there wasn’t always a guard there. Sometimes a guard just hung outside of the pod in a chair looking in. Guards would also hang out in a little room in the middle of four pods. There were eight phones along one wall and bolted-down tables and stools. At the far end were bathrooms.
Self-Governance
Jena had guards, some assholes, some nice, Alejandro says, but daily life was mostly organized by the people inside. There was a strong culture of self-maintenance and self-regulation, beside whatever the guards were doing. “We made that work,” he says, “because nobody wants to be there. Nobody was in there as a punishment for a crime; they were just stuck in there waiting for court dates, or on their way to be deported. It could be a really bad time, or you could try to make the best of it.”
When Alejandro arrived, the governance structure in his pod was run by a gang that exists only inside detention. Because nearly everyone in the pod was on their way out, gang rivalries from the outside were largely suspended. But the gang required that anyone running the pod be a member of the gang. Leadership changed every few weeks, and the culture and rules shifted with whoever was in charge.
Toward the end of Alejandro’s time there, though, some of the longer-term residents—Alejandro, P., and others not part of the gang—were allowed to be nominated to run the pod. P., who had been there the longest, became the representative.
Disputes got talked out, to make sure no one was being resentful. If someone was stealing, they were kicked out. If the guards tried to move someone into the pod who the existing residents didn’t like because of the energy they were bringing, they said no, and “the guards respected that.”
What People Did All Day
Alejandro says he spent most of his time in Jena lying in bed reading, especially when he started getting Stephen King books. He could get books fairly easily once people figured out that they had to send him books directly from the seller, not from their personal library. “I was getting so much mail that the mail lady was my friend. She would say, ‘My supervisor told me I don’t have to give you this but I’m gonna let you have it because you’re cool.”
“We were supposed to be able to go outside twice a day, but that was hardly true,” Alejandro says. At times when they couldn’t go outside, a couple of fights broke out. People had way too much energy and were quick to snap at each other. The men did find ways to work out in the pod. “We just had to makeshift our own stuff,” he says, which the guards took away when they saw it. “But we would just make new stuff, because we had nothing but time,” he says.
P. was always trying to calm things down, Alejandro says, even when he wasn’t the pod representative. To discourage fighting, P. would tell people a story about an inmate who got into a physical fight with a guard and they proceeded to pepper spray the whole room. Because the guards are “a bunch of fucking idiots,” Alejandro explained, they trapped themselves in the room—the guards have to call into the radio to get the doors opened—so they were stuck in there choking on pepper spray. But then P. reminded people that if the guards use pepper spray because of a fight, all their possessions will smell like pepper forever, so that’s the last thing they want.
Food, Sanitation, Healthcare
The food, Alejandro says, “was pretty terrible, one level under school cafeteria food.” Because he has diabetes, he couldn’t eat most of the rice, but ate the beans and the protein. Once a week, they got chicken. That was the highlight of everyone’s week.
On chicken day, Alejandro collected the bones. He had access to a microwave, so he would heat the bones in water, let it steep overnight, and the next morning have something resembling broth. “It was great,” he says.
“The sanitation was 90% up to us,” Alejandro says. He heard that other pods didn’t clean every day, but his did. They cleaned every day unless they couldn’t get supplies, or if another pod had stolen their broom handles. The pod got dirty fast. “I’d always see the dust bunnies flying around,” he says. “I just cleaned. How is this happening?”
Seven rows of bunk beds meant a rotating schedule: one row was responsible for cleaning the whole room each day. If you didn’t want to clean, you could pay someone else to do it. “There was always someone willing to do that, because people always want to get extra food you know?” he says.
Healthcare was available, but access to it required persistence. You had to put your name on a list, wait, and then follow up if nothing happened. Advocate for yourself or get skipped. Once you actually got in front of a doctor, they were happy to help you, Alejandro says.
He managed his diabetes better than he expected. Working out and not having easy access to the things like candy kept his A1C in the pre-diabetic range. He also got his eyes checked for glaucoma, something he’s supposed to do every year but hadn’t done in 10 years. He was supposed to get a tooth removed but refused, because he knew they wouldn’t let him keep the tooth. He wants to make a wedding ring out of it.
What Sustained People and Gave Them Hope?
People leaned heavily on religion, Alejandro says. He includes himself in that, but not the type of religion he’d spent his outside life moving away from. He moved forward with his own beliefs, but just internally.
Of course, he got a lot of hope from receiving and writing letters. Phone calls, books, cards, and working out helped too. He was on the phone constantly, and he was writing. There was a PlayStation in the pod, but Alejandro didn’t want to occupy himself with that. He preferred to stay up until five in the morning playing cards with P. and whoever else was awake. “It’s not a life, but you could keep yourself entertained if you wanted to.”
Alejandro says that because of his personality, people would confide in him. “I found a lot of comfort in just recognizing my privilege,” he says. A man from El Salvador, immediately on meeting Alejandro shared that he was $50,000 in debt to the coyote who had crossed him over to the United States. He had just found a job good enough to start paying it back, but then he got picked up. He was facing deportation and a debt he couldn’t pay, and yet what he kept coming back to was that he’d get to go home to El Salvador and see his wife and daughters.
“Wow, if this guy is looking forward to his life back at home, even in debt and all this other stuff,” Alejandro says, “what right do I have to be sad about what I’m doing or where I’m going?” He is happy that he has three times as many family members in his life now, in Mexico, compared to when he was living in the States.
What Can People on the Outside Do to Help?
Alejandro has an immediate answer for this. The most important thing, he says, would be to create a phone number that people inside detention can call—a line staffed by people who speak Spanish, who can receive a name and an A-number (Alien Registration Number) and then connect that person to resources, legal support, or just someone who knows what to do next. He knows of an organization that tried something like this but couldn’t find enough Spanish-speaking volunteers to staff the line.
This matters more than anything else because many people inside have only one or two numbers memorized, and may have forgotten the phone numbers of loved ones. Or they may have family members on the outside who are themselves overwhelmed and don’t know what steps to take. Without a number to call to say I’m here, this is my name, please help me connect to someone, all the other forms of support (letters, books, money on the books, legal fundraising) become unreachable.
“All that letter stuff, book stuff, fundraising stuff comes after that initial connection to the outside world,” he says.
Beyond that, letters are definitely meaningful. Also, money on the books, even a small amount, is meaningful. He mentions that ICE now maintains a website where people can look up detainees; putting money on someone’s books, even $5, through that system is something almost anyone can do.
Alejandro also encountered people who had been cheated by lawyers who took their money and never worked their cases. Access to a verified list of accredited legal representatives who could be trusted was something he wished had existed inside.
What He Wants People to Know
“I got lucky,” Alejandro says. He was detained, and it sucked, but he was not in a detention center with 42 people sleeping on a floor with no beds, he wasn’t given moldy food or sexually assaulted. He knows those places exist. “The nightmare can always be worse,” he says. “And for some people it is the worst.”
So if you have the chance, he says, reach out or somehow support somebody with a letter, or put $5 on their books. “We can’t all do everything,” Alejandro says, “but we can all do something.”
He describes the chaos of landing in Mexico, where he hadn’t lived for 23 years. He got off the plane in Mexico and received a single sheet of paper saying he had been deported. He was told to return to the state in Mexico where he was born and use the paper to get an ID. The people in that state had never seen the paper. The phone numbers on it rang and rang. “Bureaucracy times a thousand,” he says. The government officials he encountered were doing their jobs and nothing more. There was “zero non-profit help.”
He made it through because one of the friends he had made inside, who was deported at the same time, called an uncle to pick them up. “So I didn’t have to get stuck in the government line for half a day for a free bus pass,” he says. “Not everyone has that.”
Now in Mexico City, Alejandro is building a new life and reconnecting with family members he hadn’t seen in years. He hopes to also reconnect with friends he made inside.
Soon after he was detained, Alejandro asked two things of the people working to support him: to take care of his mother, and to raise awareness through a public campaign. After being deported, he shared the following message with them:
“I want to thank EVERYONE who has had me in their thoughts for the last 25 weeks. It is only through the strength and love of all of you that I am alive and well and actually really excited about this next stage in my life, getting to know a world that had always been out of reach for me. There is so much I have to be worried about, but at least I won’t be looking around every corner for the polimigra as they run rampant through our communities. There is so much uncertainty, but I know I’ll have the opportunity to access higher education, a dream that as an undocumented immigrant living in TN had also seemed so out of reach in the past. These dreams are all within my grasp now due to the fact you all have held me and continue to hold me in the crescendo that I consider my beloved community. I look forward to being able to share a picture of my grateful smile in hopes to brighten your spirits in the way you all have nurtured mine.”
This article was originally published by The New Liberator; please consider supporting the original publication, and read the original version at the link above.