Day 361- You've been randomly selected for additional screening at the back of the bus.

Dear Mr. President,

A few months ago, in the rapid decline of my optimism about internet dating, I agreed to go on one last date with a man from the dating site I'd been using. One last chance, I told myself, and then I could safely give up this endless series of awkward, uncomfortable encounters and sulk, self-satisfied, assured of the hopelessness of dating and single men in general. When I arrived at the coffee shop at the appointed time I was already convinced that this encounter would be no different than the last, preparing already the excuses I would make after an hour or, if I could manage, even less. Ten minutes later, I might have been laughing at the irony of this, had I not been too busy attempting to scrape my jaw off of the floor and work the dumbstruck expression off of my face. My date was not only black americano-drinking, charming and easy to talk to, he was clearly intelligent, compassionate, adventurous and funny. (It didn't hurt that he was heart-breakingly, out-of-my-league-by-miles good-looking either.) We talked for hours. Nothing romantic may have come from this date, but we stayed friends, passing e-mails and brief comments on the latest news. He suggested a number of topics for my letters to you, and helped me better understand a few stories I didn't fully grasp. Our friendship since has been casual, but it certainly helped convince me not to completely give up on the idea of meeting men online.

Today my friend, returning from a trip abroad to visit family, was unreasonably held up in an American airport by security. I don't know the details of this, what it entailed or how he finally managed to get on a connection to come back home. Unfortunately, because my friend is also Arab, I know that this would not have happened to him if he had a different last name or a different skin color. The whole situation makes me sickeningly, blindingly angry. When I expressed this to others I heard more stories of friends or relatives or coworkers or friends of friends being held up in the absurd, racist so-called security system in American airports. I remembered walking through Israeli checkpoints, the separate lines for me and for my Palestinian friends and being so naively grateful that such a thing would never happen in MY country. All day I've been thinking about airports, how standing in line to get through security with my white face, American passport and generically WASP-y name while my Arab and Muslim (or, really just sufficiently brown-skinned) friends will be "randomly" given additional screening and I keep thinking of the same metaphor. I'm sitting on a bus in Alabama watching silently as they are made to file past me to the back.

You've experienced first-hand what it is to be thought of as Muslim and/or Arab in this country. Even as President you've seen the ugly, racist way some in this country still view some one with your skin color, your name, or the religion falsely ascribed to be your own. You've heard the crazy woman screeching at John McCain "he's an Arab!", the state representatives demanding to see your birth certificate, the 20% of Americans who think you practice Islam. If any privileged outsider is able to understand the treatment Arab-Americans and American Muslims have experienced in airports since 9/11 I would think that you might be. And while the TSA monopoly on air travel and the necessity of covering great distances quickly may prevent a Montgomery bus-style boycott of airplanes, I suspect that eventually the American people will not stand to see our friends and neighbors and loved ones treated this way in the name of our own safety.

Life isn't safe. I don't feel safer knowing that my friend is being profiled, harassed, or even inconvenienced solely because of his race. I feel sick about it. My patriotism is not a brittle, small thing, but it is based on the principles this country is supposed to stand for even in the face of fear. How am I supposed to love my country, to feel pride in it, knowing that these principles can be so easily betrayed by those sworn to defend them?

My friend, who has, in the course of our political conversations, proven himself to be calmer and more even-tempered than me on many issues, said to me today that "being Arabic and in a US airport may as well be a crime." I don't know what he's feeling or how he'll respond to this incident but I am outraged that he has to feel it, respond to it at all. And it isn't just my friend, it isn't just this airport or this incident. This is happening right now, it has been happening for too long and it will continue to happen until enough people with enough power are brave enough to stand up and say it isn't right, it isn't American and it isn't keeping us safe.

Until we stop boarding the bus and say we'll be walking to work for the foreseeable future, thank you very much.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 216- Happy Birthday!

Dear Mr. President,

As it is your 49th birthday, and California progressives just scored a victory in the courtroom, I feel like today is going to be a pretty good day. Even the news sites seem to agree. Tom Friedman doesn't think America is completely done for. Maureen Dowd is writing about the tragic mediocrity of modern Romantic comedies so her life must be going pretty well. Tom Tancredo is actually getting out-crazied in Colorado. For once, reading the news site headlines doesn't make me despair for the future, so I'm going to hurry up and finish this letter before reality sinks in.

This was a small dark shadow on our election night victory; a sobering reminder that we had not completely won that night. A number of your supporters were subject to the bigotry and hypocrisy of this proposition, a law with no justification beyond irrational fear. That night might have been one big party for liberals, but I think most of us knew our joy could not be complete with proposition 8 on the books. Even if we weren't gay. Even if we weren't Californian. On that night that reminded so many how it felt to be proud of our country once again, it was impossible to deny that injustice against gay couples in California was still a reflection on all Americans. With today's decision, the parts of me that held back on election night are ready for their turn to celebrate. Tonight, I'll be raising a glass to the people who fought to see prop 8 defeated today. While I'm at it, I'll be toasting your Birthday, too. I am glad that you won the election, and, if I don't always think you do the best job of looking out for those left behind in your haste to be popular, I'll overlook it today. It's your Birthday, after all, and I think California is demonstrating that the constitutional commitment to justice and equality for all Americans is stronger than one unjust law or even one well-intentioned, if still imperfect, man.


Happy Birthday!

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 215- Birthright

“We all feel and understand the hearts of children, but on the other hand, there are Zionist considerations and ensuring the Jewish character of the state of Israel. The problem is that these two components clash.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu


Dear Mr. President,

I agree with Lou Dobbs. That's actually too weird for me to feel comfortable saying out loud, so let me say instead, Lou Dobbs agrees with me about the growing number of GOP senators who want to repeal the 14th amendement, in that we both think they're ridiculous. It reminded me of an article I'd read recently about the Israeli decision to deport 400 children born in Israel to foreign laborers. While the decision made could have been much worse, the idea that it was done, as PM Netanyahu stated, to ensure "the Jewish character of the state of Israel" did not sit well with me. In general, I'm opposed to systems of government where a person's religion determines their rights. The idea that several of my friends born in America have a birthright to Israeli citizenship that these children (not to mention the millions of Palestinians forced out in 1948 and 1967) born in Israel do not have, it just doesn't seem right. It's not a debate I'm likely to win, and I do understand the need for Jews to have a protected place and the means to defend themselves against another holocaust. I just don't think that denying the rights of non-Jews born in Israel is an acceptable cost.

I wonder, what character of our nation would we be trying to preserve in repealing 14th amendment rights? Our white, English-speaking character? Or, perhaps, the illusion that white Americans who took this land from the native people have a superior right to its resources than the descendants of non-white populations that have lived on this continent for generations before Europeans knew its name? I, for one, do not think that character, or that illusion, is worth protecting at all, but especially not if it means devaluing our constitution. I think that the rights guaranteed in our constitution, the spirit of freedom and equality enshrined in its words, that lofty and yet to be perfected ideal is the only character we ought to fight to ensure. Denying these basic values to persecute immigrants and minorities for the sake of keeping our white, English-speaking, Christian majority is simply not what this country stands for.

And I'm glad to know that Lou Dobbs agrees with me.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 212- Lies, Damn lies, and statistics

Dear Mr. President,

As long as I'm on a role with the political cliches, I might as well concede that all politics is local. The decision to build an Islamic community center in New York is and should be a local one. Initially I supported the White House's decision not to comment, but once it became a rallying cry for every Tea Party mouthpiece from Sarah Palin to Newt Gingrich. It seemed as though maybe the White House ought to weigh in. But the recent denouncement of the decision by the Anti-Defamation League, (which, unbelievably, seems to think religious freedom ought to be contingent upon no one being irrationally upset by it,) compels me to change my mind.

Nate Silver has provided some excellent analysis on how the polling and media coverage have mislead the public, not only abou the nature of this project, but about it's relative proximity to ground zero, based largely on the lies of those who oppose it. Mr. Silver suggests, and I agree with his conclusions, that the polling data might not be an accurate reflection of public opinion, as it is based on questions constructed with vague or false information. I think it is clear that many of the people claiming to be opposed to the construction of the community center (besides not being New Yorkers,) have been misinformed. Republicans across the country are using this as a campaign issue to excite their base and sway those who haven't been given all of the facts. It's both politically expedient and morally imperative that you make a stand in support of the community center.

For starters, you're probably already aware that it's being linked to you, regardless of your lack of an official position. I'm guessing that an official speech declaring your support for religious freedom wouldn't alienate any one planning to vote Democrat in the fall, and might even win back some of the independents swayed by this nonsense, in clearing up the facts. But, even beyond the political gain, as our nation's leader, I feel like you have a responsibility to defend our values, and to remind us all when we've let fear and partisanship come before our basic humanity. Religious freedom is an American value, and anyone should have the right to build a church, synagogue, mosque, temple or even a satanic shrine anywhere. We don't have Islam-free zones, and most every rational, informed American recognizes this as important to the religious freedom of all Americans.

There was a moment in your Presidential campaign when a surprisingly frank and honest speech about race turned things around for you. But it was more than a turning point for your campaign; that speech healed a small part of a much larger wound on the psyche of our nation. It brought people together and reminded them that the challenges we face are only made more difficult by fear. These attempts at dividing us, once again, are coming at a time when we need unity more than ever. I believe that what this issue needs, more than anything is the wisdom and leadership that we expect from our President during times of fear and uncertainty. People need to know that all of America will always be safe for them, regardless of their faith. People need to know that they are being lied to and manipulated by those who would gain power from their fear. People need to know that Muslims in America have the full rights and protections of the US constitution, and the support of their president. No comment is no longer good enough, Mr. President; right or wrong, this has become a national issue, and it demands your leadership.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

PS

Is it not more than a little hypocritical for Republicans to reject a bill that would move aid to injured 9/11 workers while simultaneously invoking their sacrifice to oppose religious freedom for Muslims?

Update: Nate Silver (probably my one true love) just posted an addition to his earlier post.

Day 194- Bad Art Museum of Bad Art

Dear Mr. President,

The French government is another step closer to a full public ban on the burqa. I suppose this makes me grateful to live where I do. Not because I wear a veil, but because I could. Because, more than wear what we want, we can say what we want. We can open bars with "Obama rooms" celebrating bad art. Art can be subversive, offensive, contrary to the values or beliefs or faiths of so many people, and it is no threat to our society. It can hang on the wall, or be inked on some one's skin, or stitched into their clothing and it doesn't make them less American.



Tonight I was in a bar, drowning my AL sorrows, with an "Obama Room". I didn't find out what it meant, or why it was named after you, but the sign said it was a room of bad art. I think it meant that the room is safe for bad art, for art that not every one likes or understands. Art that no one wants to pay for, that no one would remember, otherwise. Art that doesn't have to justify its own existence.

I couldn't help but think of the women in France being targeted by this law. There aren't enough of them to defend themselves democratically. They are outsiders, isolated, kept apart from the rest of French society- not by their own beliefs or culture, but by a government that, by overwhelming majority, has declared their manner of dress to be out of step with what it means to be French.

I'm still pretty upset about the American League breaking a 14-year streak of domination at today's all-star game, so forgive me a baseball metaphor. Baseball has always been described as quintessentially American, but I could, with little fear of harassment, walk outside with a shirt saying "I hate baseball" or "Babe Ruth is stupid" and not worry that it made me any less American. I might be in an extreme minority, too few to ever have my opinion represented in the legislature or to count on it being defended by voters, but the constitution protects me, all the same. It is this bedrock principle that represents true "Americanism", this document which defends us all from the whims of the majority. I hope that, when the law in France must face up to their own constitution, that it is struck down. that the noble principles enshrined in that document are stronger than a passing fear of those who do not dress the right way.

What do you think of this law, Mr. President? Will you speak out against it, demonstrating that the friendship between the US and France is once characterized first by its frankness and honesty? I hope that you will, I hope that the Council of the State acts to protect the rights of these French women. Because, be we immigrants or baseball haters or bad artists or just believers in a faith different from that of the majority, we deserve our own corner of safety, the respect of our governments and of our fellow citizens. Speak to President Sarkozy, Mr. President, and tell him this law is not worthy of a modern democracy.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 184- Privilege

Just as this day serves as a reminder of the immeasurable bravery of those who have made America what it is today, it also renews in us the solemn duty we share to ensure our Nation lives up to its promise. We must not simply commemorate the work begun over two and a quarter centuries ago; we are called to join together, hoist their mantle upon our shoulders, and carry that spirit of service into tomorrow

President Barack Obama, July 2, 2010, Message regarding Independence Day



Dear Mr. President,

Two years ago, on July 4th, I was not feeling particularly patriotic. The group of travelers I was with had just arrived in a small Palestinian village after a full day of hiking; several people were sick, we were all hot and exhausted, and, while the village offered us the same legendary Palestinian hospitality that we'd received in other villages, there was an undercurrent of tension and sadness. The night before, in the darkness, IDF soldiers had arrested several young boys known to have been friends with another boy, already arrested for throwing rocks at a tank. Some of the boys had been very young, and no one knew when, or even if, they would be returned to their families. It was hard, that night, to feel anything but sadness at the situation my country had helped create and continued to perpetuate for these people.

I don't lie awake at night afraid of the soldiers coming. I don't worry about the door breaking down, or tear gas or bullets or bombs. Even the airport security seems like a breeze, by comparison. I am grateful for this security, these protections, and for the history of those rights we celebrate on Independence day. But I am a lucky one. I live in an America that still recognizes the paramount importance of these rights. Many of my neighbors, because they have dark skin, do not live in this America. Many of my fellow citizens have these rights violated, still. Even more undocumented immigrants in this country are kept from these basic rights because they were not born here. Untold numbers of so-called enemy combatants in Guantanamo bay and in military prisons around the world are denied these rights as a matter of policy. In places like Palestine, and Egypt, and Saudi Arabia the echo of America's foreign policy is the deprivation of these rights by regimes we call allies. Still greater in number are the people living in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan where these rights are a distant dream, a pretense for the wars that have brought them nothing but suffering and destruction.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

All men. Not just those rich, white and lucky enough to have been born here. All men. Tonight I will lie awake wondering at the possibility of a world that reflects more completely the mighty ambitions of the founding we celebrate tomorrow. I don't think it is a lack of patriotism, on my part, to look at our current state and see all of the promise yet to be fulfilled. I am lucky, and grateful, to be an American citizen of privilege, and I can think of no better use for that privilege than to demand that the same be given to all.

Happy 4th of July, Mr. President.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 126- Timothy McVeigh died an American

Dear Mr. President,

Joe Lieberman's bill aiming to revoke the citizenship of anyone who associates with foreign terror groups who attack the the US or its allies makes me more fearful of my government than I have ever been before. To begin with, Senator Lieberman has made it clear that his bill targets those joining Islamic groups above all others; Timothy McVeigh, were he alive today, would have nothing to fear from this bill. Neither would the Hutaree militia. Why should plotting to overthrow our government be more of a crime, or some one suspected of it be eligible for less legal protection, if it involves foreign terrorist organizations and not domestic ones? This bill doesn't even require proof that the citizen is planning an act of violence; affiliation is grounds enough to revoke a person's citizenship.

Our citizenship is not based upon our behavior. Child molesters, rapists, serial killers, Neo-Nazis, Klansmen, even Dick Cheney all get to keep their status as citizens, regardless of the scale of their crimes against this country or their intent to commit more. The true test of the rights and legal protections we have as citizens is when they must be applied even to the worst among us. The bill Mr. Lieberman is proposing would do more to harm the fabric and character of our national values than any act of violence ever could.

Moral arguments aside, I fail to see the legal or political advantages to this bill. For starters, isn't prosecuting non-citizens who commit crimes against the United States infinitely more complicated than prosecuting our own citizens? Any trials and convictions are far more likely to withstand legal challenge if the utmost precaution was taken to avoid infringing upon the legal rights of the defendant. Having those legal rights clearly defined helps prevent them from being violated. Yes, it's easier to break down the door of a murder suspect and start looking for evidence than to wait and obtain a search warrant. But if the evidence is thrown out in court or on appeal, a killer goes free. We're all made safer when the rights and protections guaranteed to us by the constitution are respected for every one.

Perhaps this legislation upsets me so much because I see how, with only the smallest stretches, it could be applied to me. I've traveled to Palestine, and I've sent money, both to charitable organizations and educational institutions. The way Palestinian groups are viewed by my government is often quite extreme; you yourself had to circumvent some of the more draconian anti-Palestinian legislation in the service of our own national security interests. I have little doubt that Senator Lieberman and my own definition of appropriate groups to affiliate myself with may be different, in this part of the world. In addition, I have written, both in letters to you and in other places, about doubting the morality of remaining in America while my tax dollars pay for the Israeli occupation. Would this be grounds enough to demonstrate intent to renounce my citizenship? I'm not a lawyer, Mr. President, but it seems to me that this bill might easily be applied to mean that, without a shred of violent intent towards any American, I could be viewed as unworthy of my rights as an American citizen.

Please, sir, do not support this legislation. Walk back the support of those in your administration, like Secretary Clinton, who would, in their zeal to fight terror, do more harm to this country than any they bomb ever could. We cannot turn on our own citizens; the greatest threats to civil liberties have historically come in the name of protection from enemies inside and out. Remember, Mr. President, your power, and Senator Lieberman's power, comes from the citizens of this country who granted it to you. We trusted you to defend and uphold those codified rights that are older than any of us and will outlast us all. No amount of fear will ever make it acceptable for those rights to be taken away.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 120- National Prayer day

Dear Mr. President,

National displays of faith, or national calls for prayer make me uncomfortable. I'm not a religious person and I generally feel excluded, somehow, as though these days of prayer are meant to distinguish "real" Americans with Judeo-Christian values from those of us who don't have an easy religious definition. But our country is overwhelmingly religious, and while symbolic displays of faith by our supposedly secular government might make me feel uncomfortable and alienated, it doesn't do any one any real harm. If I can ask religious voters to set aside their discomfort about abortion and gay marriage, I can put up with a National Day of Prayer.

While I don't think this is harmful, and I understand the political benefit of making religious Americans feel as though they have a voice in our government, I wonder at the kind of religious belief that requires support in national policy. I think of spirituality as an intensely personal expression; I do not need my government to reflect, encourage or express my religious beliefs. (I'd prefer that it didn't try to, because there is simply no way for a government like ours to express all the myriad complexities and contradictions of the faiths of its people.) But I've heard the outrage from many Christians at the perception of our government, and especially your administration, as being against religious expression, and I just don't understand it. If people want to pray today, they should do so. If they want some one to lead them in prayer, they should go to a religious leader. Why is that a role for our government? Isn't faith, by definition, an act of personal will?

I think that believing in God should not require any action on the part of any one else. I don't believe the phrase "under God" has any place in our pledge of allegiance, which is meant to be a devotion to our nation, founded on the freedom to be any religion, or none at all. National Prayer Day does not do me any great injury, but I wonder if it does any one any real good, either. I think that any one who prays does so without prompting from their elected officials. In your declaration today you called upon "the citizens of our Nation to pray, or otherwise give thanks, in accordance with their own faiths and consciences, for our many freedoms and blessings." I am thankful for our many freedoms and blessings, and even for the goodwill that religious belief generates in people from all faiths. Maybe we look for too many reasons to complain. I'm certainly guilty of this, especially in the face of my relatively blessed existence, but I hope that you know how many of us are thankful to be spared government-imposed religious expression, as well.

I know you are a religious man, Mr. President, and so I hope that you found today to be helpful, comforting or inspiring. So long as you continue to defend the separation of church and state, I will put aside my discomfort at these symbolic displays of a faith that does not belong to me.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 110

Dear Mr. President,

I’m sorry about Arizona. Not any legislation that they may have passed lately, but really about the entire state. If they try to secede from union, please let them.

Tonight I'm having a heated discussion with friends about the Supreme Court's decision on animal cruelty videos. I made Hollandaise sauce for the first time, so maybe I was feeling just a bit arrogant. Anyway, I quickly realized it might be a mistake to start such a conversation in this group of people. None of us knows what to think, and the few that started out certain of their opinions are not so any longer. I only know that I don't know anything completely. I'm a big advocate of free speech; I'm also a big advocate of people not being allowed to profit from or get off on animals being tortured and killed. Maybe this is a real test of my first amendment advocacy. After all, it's easy to defend speech that you don't find objectionable. The real test is when some one's behavior crosses your personal threshold for acceptable expression.

I don't disagree with the Supreme Court about this specific law; it was overly broad and clearly problematic in several ways. I think that the cruelty toward animals practiced by many agricultural companies and even some hunters has no place in our society, but I recognize that I'm among the most extreme in these views. Still, I think there's some common ground to be found in the worst cases of violence against animals. Try as I might, articulating that in legal terms has been difficult. Could we ban the sale, distribution or possession of pornographic videos that involve live animals? Defining pornography, of course, becomes problematic.

How do you feel about this decision, Mr. President? Do you feel that the law struck down should be re-written in a way that doesn't pose a threat to the first amendment? Is this an area of expression that warrants some restriction? Or should we accept this horrifying material as the unavoidable by-product of living in a free society?

I don't think any one, even the 8 Justices who voted with the majority on this, feel good about today's decision. It is one of those haunting reminders of the frightening and even dangerous complexities of our society; our complete inability to be safe, free, and morally upright all at once, all the time.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 70 - For you, Liberalviewer

Dear Mr. President,

While it has lately become a rallying cry for the right to oppose jury trials for terror suspects, I'm writing today to ask you to respect the constitution- a document I know you revered even before you swore to uphold and protect it as President- and ensure that all suspected criminals are given the due process our constitution outlines. The constitution is not a suicide pact, but nor was it written for easy, peaceful times. It was written to see us through trying times such as these, to remind us that the value of our idealism is greater than our fear. The rights codified within it were not to protect the innocent, but the guilty, as well as the credibility and integrity of the system itself. Denying even the worst criminals their rights jeopardizes the soundness of the entire legal system, and is a risk I beg you not take.

Trials are slow, trials are expensive, trials can be frustrating. But the swift, secret justice being called for is not justice at all. I would rather bear the expense, the risk, and the wait, to ensure that the constitutional rights of all involved were respected. Do not bend to political pressure from those looking for vengeance or for the impossible illusion of safety. These trials must be held in the light of day, subject to public scrutiny, and must respect the letter & spirit of the law. I believe we can and should protect the constitution above all else- even our personal safety. This may sound extreme, but I think that, in a world as unpredictable and dangerous as ours, we cannot ever truly guarantee our safety. We can take precautions, we can foster awareness, and we can prosecute and punish criminals to the full extent of the law; but we can never become safer by giving up our rights to proper legal procedure and protection for all. Please, sir, do not allow this essential American institution to be suspended for any one, regardless of their crimes.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 4

Updating from work on my lunch break.. I really should have written this earlier in the day.

Today's letter:
Dear Mr. President,

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”


Today being January 4th, and the type of day that requires me to type this up quickly during my lunch break, I am going to write about my favorite constitutional amendment, the 4th. Don’t get me wrong- I think the 1st is the most important- but the 4th is my favorite, (and not just because it features so prominently in Jay-Z’s 99 problems).

While returning from my trip to Palestine in the summer of 2008, I was flying out of the Tel Aviv airport. I’d already had an amazing trip- punctuated of course by run-ins with the IDF at checkpoints and while hiking, though these encounters had been relatively easy for me, as an American. Once in the airport, however, I was on my own and had no idea what to expect. While I’d entered the country with ease, my companions had each been detained, interrogated, searched and grudgingly allowed entrance. During our hike, Palestinian Arabs had to use separate lines through checkpoints, and the IDF soldiers stopping us to check ID often tried to “sort” us, (“Arabs on one side, every one else on the other.”) Our group began as strangers but became fast friends and our response quickly became “We are all Palestinians. You cannot separate us.” Once in the airport I was instructed by my guides to tell any one who asked that I’d spent the whole trip in Jerusalem, and that any items I had purchased (olivewood carvings, jewelry, flags, t-shirts, etc) were also from Jerusalem. I did so, but became uncomfortable lying during a more in-depth search of my belongings.

The woman shouting questions at me wanted to know who I’d been with, their names, their professions, where we had gone and if I had been “alone with any Arabs.” She seemed to think me horribly naïve, and kept insisting that I had been in danger. “Don’t you know what they do to women?” “How do you know they did not try to give you a bomb?” This whole process, while mildly offensive, was still a bit amusing to me, as my backpack was full of the clothes I’d been wearing for 2 weeks of hiking in the summer heat.
I’d heard stories about a British traveler who, growing weary of the endless questions he’d encounter on his trips through Tel-Aviv, would start to remove his clothing at the first question. I’d had a professor experience a truly invasive search at the Allenby bridge crossing, and so I was prepared by these anecdotes that a more invasive search was not impossible. I was dressed modestly, again, on the advice of the trip organizers, but at one point my jacket slipped down to reveal a tattoo I have in Arabic. This caught the attention of one of the security offices and I was ordered to remove my jacket, read the tattoo and explain what it meant. She said “Why would you get that language tattooed on your body?” I was then asked to proceed to a back room for a “metal detector test”, (though I did not encounter a metal detector but instead was asked to remove my clothing,) and frisked. The girl conducting the search seemed mildly embarrassed about the ordeal and apologized to me several times before checking between my toes and in my hair. I passed this strange test and the girl led me through security and escorted me to my gate, even intervening with her supervisor to allow me to keep my asthma inhaler in my carry-on.

After an uneventful day in Prague, I made it to customs at JFK. The man looked at my passport, looked at my tattoo, and said “Welcome to New York.” In that moment, sir, I loved my country more than I had the rest of my years. Knowing that I could have a tattoo of anything and not be interrogated about it, knowing that I could have my belongings kept private unless there was reasonable cause for suspicion, knowing that my constitution protected me in this way made me incredibly grateful. I’m sorry that so many of us have to experience a loss of our freedom to appreciate what we have.

This brings to mind the tightened security and more elaborate searches faced by many Americans since the attempted attack. While I am genuinely happy to have my belongings searched before bringing them aboard a flight- I have no wish to die in an airplane and would cede even my beloved 4th amendment rights, to some degree, for this safety- I wish there were ways to ensure that these measures were being conducted in a such a way as to respect the individuals being searched. I hope that passengers are not being profiled by their race, religion or personal appearance. We have to find a way to balance personal safety with personal freedom and the inevitable mistakes along the way will need to minimized, admitted to and apologized for. I only hope that we do not allow fear to shape our country into something unrecognizable.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey