Ter Apel, a small, unassuming Dutch town near the German border, is a place tourists rarely have on their itinerary. There are no lovely old windmills, no cannabis-filled coffee shops and on a recent visit it was far too early for tulip season.
When foreigners end up there, it is for one reason: to claim asylum at the Netherlands’ biggest refugee camp, home to 2,000 desperate people from all around the world.
Many of the American refugees, like Jane-Michelle Arc, a 47-year-old software engineer from San Francisco, are transgender. In April last year she flew into Schiphol airport in Amsterdam and, sobbing, asked a customs officer how to claim asylum. “And they laughed because: what’s this big dumb American doing here asking about asylum? And then they realised I was serious.”
Arc said the US had become such a hostile environment for trans people that she had stopped leaving the house “unless there was an Uber waiting outside”. She said she had been abused on the street and using the ladies’ toilets, and resolved to leave the country after a frightening incident when she feared a woman was going to run her over with her truck.
I know it’s a tough time but I have trouble imagining it being that bad in SF. I know the situation isn’t ideal but there are only so many places available for refugees each year and some people applying are actually expecting death or worse if they go back.
Seems to be a bit tone deaf imo, we aren’t at that point yet, at least not in San Fransisco. I would be livid if I was from somewhere with an actual civil war, where whole villages are getting wiped, and see my spot get taken by someone from Cali.
I want to be clear I think there is a problem with how transgender folk are being treated, but I think the asylum system has a lot of bigger ones to deal with and its already struggling with those. I wish other countries stepped up and offered easier immigration if you’re transgender or something. This just feels like the wrong way to do it.
Upvoted for the good faith argument and conversation.
I don’t entirely agree or disagree with you. I think they have basically no chance of getting asylum because the dutch government doesn’t see the US as an unsafe place and so in a way this is taking away time and resources from people who, like you said, are fleeing from things like civil wars.
Also as an american you can move to the Netherlands legally relatively easily! You need money, yes, but it’s waaaaaay easier for an american than for basically any other non European. You can start your own company here, invest not even that much and you get a residency permit. I know multiple Americans here who have done this, including a non binary person (irrelevant but for them it was a reason to leave the US).
At the same time I can’t blame anyone from wanting to escape a threatening and dangerous situation. Just getting on a flight is the quickest way to safety, so of course I empathise (and clearly so do you, just to make that clear).
q=“trans beat up california ice raid”
remember, choosing to ignore facts is your choice
Some Jewish folk left Germany right when the Nazis started gaining ground. I imagine there were plenty of versions of you saying the same thing.
Fair point. I guess I don’t consider the war on Christo-fascism to be lost and can’t really imagine it getting that bad but you’re right, it could very well come to that.
Humans have been wiping out slightly different humans since before we had words to name them. It’s the most normal thing humans do.
I wish I could afford to flee to California. It’s night and day from this shithole state I’m stuck in.
I’d still prefer to be out of the US entirely.
What are your issues specifically with California (in comparison to other U.S. states), and which state(s) would you consider to be better?
I think the tone deaf thing here is you telling trans people, who are being actively targeted by an increasingly fascist goverment and conservative media, that it’s not bad enough yet for them to leave.
Any person who wants to leave and has the means to leave should absolutely leave by whatever means, and your judgment of them is of no value.
If you have a problem with worldwide asylum quotas, maybe take that up with a foreign government or something. People who are just trying to survive and make the best decisions they can in an increasingly high-stakes situation should disregard everything you’ve said and continue doing whatever they want, and you should support their ability to do so.
Well I do have a problem with worldwide quotas and immigration in general, I wish our borders were much more open. Look, I’m just saying that someone from San Fransisco probably has other options available and shouldn’t lean on a system that’s already strained. There’s genocides and civil wars going on. Being gay is a death sentence in 8 countries. A lot of displaced women and girls have asylum or sex trade as a choice, they simply don’t have options.
I don’t think it’s wrong to say we need to triage and prioritize certain problems because of lack of resources. It doesn’t mean the ones not chosen don’t exist or that the whole system shouldn’t have more resources.
We agree that the problem is that countries would deny asylum to those in need, but sounds like your solution that those in need should preemptively disqualify themselves based vibes or something.
I think anyone who wants to should apply for asylum. If they are rejected and choose to migrate anyway, more power to them.
Why? Los Angeles last year had the largest number of hate crimes reported against trans people since they started tracking in 1980, and 90% of them were violent. California isn’t a queer utopia with no bigots.
You would expect to live if someone succeeded in running you over with a truck, as was attempted on the woman the article is about?
Unless you’re trans and in SF, you’re pulling this out of your ass.
If you are gay and get sent back to Saudi Arabia, you get killed by your own government. SF isn’t at that point yet. I’m just being realistic, although the signs are there that it could head that way, as others pointed out.
Didn’t realize you were less dead if you’ve been killed by roving fanatics on the street instead of the government. Clearly less deserving to live.
PS: ‘it’s only asylum worthy if the government is trying to kill you’ would invalidate a gigantic number of legal asylum claims in the US and Canada from people fleeing gang violence made worse by US intervention in the Central and South America. So that maybe isn’t the best line of reasoning to go down to determine who is ‘deserving’ of asylum.
It’s not that you’re less dead, it’s that there are less chance of it happening in San Fransisco than in Saudi Arabia. Stop twisting my words please.
Same for your PS. I never said only. It does augment the chances of it happening if it’s your government thought, since you would be handed to them. Most gangs are deeply embedded in the government in Latin America, I would say it’s essentially the same.
It isn’t black and white and these things do need to be taken into account. Right now, it sounds like your are saying sending this person back to SF and sending the person next to them back to Saudi Arabia are the same.
It sucks that we have to pick who deserves to have asylum. Its a shitty system but how likely that person is to die or worse if they go back should definitely be part of the thought process.
No, you are demanding that I say that in order for her to ‘deserve’ asylum. I’m saying ‘are they literally in Saudi Arabia?’ is a shit standard.
If someone’s life is threatened because of where they live, they should be able to apply for asylum.
Again, do you believe that someone is likely to survive being run over by a truck? Her life has already been endangered, you just don’t take that danger seriously because it happened in San Francisco.
I believe the chances of getting run over by a truck are less than the certainty of getting executed.
I was pretty clear. How deadly the truck is has no importance, it’s how likely it is to happen.
The standard is a gradient depending on how likely you are to lose your life or come to serious harm imo. How likely, not if it’s remotely possible.
‘Oh well I just don’t believe it could happen’ is the extent of the evidence you’ve given, while I’ve shown violent hate crimes are rising against transgender people in CA and that this specific woman had a murder attempt made against her. Stop wasting my time unless you have something more substantial to say than ‘well it’s not Saudi Arabia you know.’
Your stats about hate crimes (102 anti-trans hate crimes in a city of 3.9 million) don’t amount to much when taking into account the 3/4 of the middle east that encourages them, and their hate crimes usually end up in a hate mob hate burning someone to death.
She was also frightened the person was going to run her over, there is never a clear mention of an attempt. You can’t compare that to Sudan and their civil war for example.
Idk, when I hear refugee, fleeing the country comes to mind and there’s a clear danger. I just don’t see it at this time. Like, there’s a problem but there’s also trans hotlines and help groups, resources and ways to escape inside the country from even the worst of places. There’s no gay hotline in Iran. There’s no “I snitched on the cartels” help groups in Mexico. We are talking about vastly different worlds and dangers here.
sees people choosing to live in camps rather than the US
“But I’m having a tough time imagining it being that bad”
Yeah bro, people typically give up their entire lives and move halfway across the world for minor inconveniences. You would have criticized gays for leaving Germany in 1934.