9 minute read
Love in the time of Coronavirus by Indigo Funk
Love in the time of Coronavirus
How travel restrictions are disproportionally hurting international couples
Advertisement
by Indigo Funk ’23, an intended International and Public Affairs concentrator and a Staff Writer for BPR’s World Section
illustration by Hannah Chang ’23
Aimee Joe Mathew, an Indian citizen, has not seen her American boyfriend in over six months. Residing in different countries when Covid-19 travel restrictions were imposed, Mathew and her boyfriend are stuck more than 8,000 miles apart and are legally prohibited from reuniting. Their situation may seem unique, yet they are among thousands of unmarried couples separated from each other by government-mandated travel restrictions.
While there are exemptions from travel restrictions for relationships that transcend borders, most countries require a couple to be legally married in order to qualify. This policy has left many unmarried and binational couples separated for upwards of seven months, forcing some to postpone a planned wedding or even to miss the birth of a child.
Given the immense distress that strict travel restrictions have caused, some nations are enacting changes to aid couples in this situation. In August, the European Commission asked members of the European Union (EU) to allow unmarried couples to reunite; 12 countries complied and Canada recently followed suit. However, the issue is far from resolved. More countries must acknowledge that even though travel restrictions are necessary, the benefits of granting unmarried international couples an exception far outweigh the public health risks.
Since travel restrictions were put in place, an international grassroots movement using the hashtag #LoveIsNotTourism has advocated for these exemptions. However, outside of the EU, most countries have been hesitant to address the movement’s demands, citing a desire to slow the spread of Covid-19. This claim is questionable, as even the most restrictive countries have allowed exemptions for student and business travel. If business and higher education have been deemed essential enough to be permitted an exception, surely the love between separated couples is essential too.
Legal marriage remains an arbitrary criterion for determining whether two people deserve to reunite. Marriage does not inherently demonstrate any more emotional attachment than that between a couple who is living together or engaged. Moreover, this policy completely ignores
many LGBTQ couples who may not be legally permitted to marry in their home nations.
Governments only grant exemptions to married couples to ease the fear of relationship fraud. Theoretically, this line of reasoning argues that anyone could claim to have a significant other in a different country in order to gain entry.
However, this has not been an issue in practice. Most of the countries offering exemptions for unmarried couples ask for proof, such as pictures, joint bank accounts, or mortgages, showing that an unmarried couple has been in a well-established relationship for at least one year. Even countries that do not require any proof, such as Denmark, have not seen significant abuse of their system.
Most importantly, travel exemptions for unmarried couples would not pose a significant risk of spreading Covid-19 due to the small number of couples who apply. France, for example, received only 600 requests for this type of exemption since it was created, an insignificant number compared to the over 250,000 international students that they welcomed this year. Especially in countries with the resources to enforce testing, contact tracing, and quarantine requirements, health experts tend to agree that the risk is minimal. Marc Van Ranst, a prominent Dutch virologist, recently tweeted on behalf of himself and his colleagues in support of #LoveIsNotTourism.
Binational couples are substantially dependent on grassroots advocacy because they are not equipped with the resources of international students and business travelers, who have powerful institutions to advocate on their behalf. Given this lack of economic and political capital, the most effective advocacy on behalf of this small, diverse, and scattered group has been the stories of separated couples. For example, Canadian officials mentioned the story of Sarah Campbell and her British fiancé when they finally introduced a travel exemption for unmarried couples. Not only did the couple have to postpone their June wedding, but when Campbell was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in July, her fiancé was unable to be by her side during her surgery and radiation therapy. Campbell described the experience as “heartbreaking and devastating,” encouraging officials to make meaningful changes to their nations’ policies.
A country’s response to Covid-19 should not intentionally disadvantage binational couples if harm can be safely avoided. In truth, the symbolic implications of defending love go far beyond the individuals in this situation. Even in the midst of a pandemic, if the international community can choose one human tradition to protect, there are few more important than being physically present with the one you love.
A Safe Place to Land
Advocating for the construction of native women’s shelters
by Renny Jiang ’24, an intended Gender and Sexuality Studies concentrator
illustration by Felipe Ortiz ’22
On the outskirts of the Flathead Reservation, in a hunting cabin in Bigfork, Montana, a Native woman peers out at the morning fog through a cabin window as she recounts the heartbreaking story of losing her niece, “Clare.” When Clare first went missing, her family called the police, as is common in most missing persons cases. From there, however, the case took a horrifying turn. The police refused to look for Clare, claiming that she was probably drunk and had run off. The family had to conduct their own search for her, walking dozens of miles in the heavy snow and desperately searching for her without any idea of what had happened or where she might be. Devastatingly, her family eventually found her body themselves.
Clare’s story matches a pattern often referred to as the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women (MMIW) epidemic, and her death is a painful reminder of how the United States has continuously failed Indigenous women by leaving them with no place to go when they leave home. Since this country’s founding, the US government has systematically devalued Native lives. Even in recent decades, Native people have endured forced relocation to federally mandated reservations and forced assimilation to American cultural norms. With their communities and traditions stripped from them, Indigenous people are more likely to suffer from mental illness, including severe depression and substance abuse disorders. For Indigenous women, the situation is even more dire; ncreased rates of mental illness and addiction on reservations are accompanied by dangerously high rates of domestic violence and sexual assault.
Unsurprisingly, the United States’ failure to address its abuse of Indigenous people has led to widespread distrust of government agencies and institutions within Indigenous communities. As a result, Native people often avoid seeking help from government institutions, including government-funded, non-Native shelters where their cultural needs are not addressed and where they’re often subject to high rates of violence by non-Natives. Exacerbating the situation, hundreds of thousands of Native women suffer from violence and homelessness, but there are only 55 existing tribal women’s shelters in the United States. To resolve this crisis, the state and federal governments in the United States, in conjunction with tribal authorities, must prioritize building and funding tribal women’s shelters on federally recognized reservations. The lives of Native women depend on it.
Of all the ethnic groups in the United States, Native women suffer from the highest rates of domestic violence and physical assault in the
home. Indeed, a shocking 55.5 percent of Native American women have experienced violence and 15.9 percent have been raped by their intimate partners. Still, non-Natives are the most common perpetrators of trauma and abuse against Native women. A whopping 96 percent of Native women who experience sexual violence are assaulted by non-Native perpetrators and 89 percent of Indigenous women have been stalked by non-Natives. For this reason, Native tribal shelters are particularly crucial in helping Indigenous women escape and recover from abusers. Not only do they offer physical protection for Native women wary of leaving their reservations, but they also offer cultural safety. Indigenous groups who reside on reservations have traditions, practices, and institutions that differ from those of non-Native American society. When Native women go to battered women’s shelters, they should also have access to their specific cultural traditions and people in their communities so that they do not feel isolated and misunderstood during their period of healing. A study conducted by the University of Calgary found that Indigenous people feel culturally safe in environments with seven key aspects: respect and trust, awareness and understanding of Native people, non-judgmental attitudes, access to Elders and other cultural support, equality of access to services and inclusion, and consistency of services and staff. The only way for the government to create a safe environment for Native women is to build shelters by and for Indigenous people that emphasize cultural sensitivity while adhering to these strict standards.
Because tribal shelters are the only spaces where Native women can enjoy both physical and cultural safety, state and federal governments should work closely with tribal governments and Native citizens to build tribal women’s shelters on reservations. Though the government should provide the funding for these shelters, it is imperative that Native people residing on the reservations oversee the construction, management, and security of the shelters themselves, as well as the implementation of other services, like transportation and childcare. Importantly, tribal governments should prioritize hiring Native women on their reservations to decide on the programs and amenities that the shelter would offer and to manage the day-to-day operations. Not only would this create employment opportunities for Native women, but it would also ensure that victims of domestic violence receive adequate care from individuals who understand their experiences.
Though this initiative might seem costly, state and federal governments are well-equipped with resources to fund it, and tribes must have access to these resources. The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA) and Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) both set aside federal grants for victims, though these funds are not often easily accessible to Native tribes. Both state and federal governments should prioritize making these existing funds more accessible, so that the hundreds of thousands of dollars directed towards Native people are actually utilized to help Native communities.
For centuries, the federal government has legally and institutionally devalued Native women and left them vulnerable to violence and abuse in their own homes. Given this history, the US government has a social and moral obligation to provide funding and support to Native people. Tribes must now take initiative to use state and federal funding to create culturally, mentally, and physically safe spaces for the women of their community. Native women deserve to have a home to stay in—one that makes them feel comfortable and safe as they heal from their past trauma. Clare’s story might have ended differently if she had had a Native women’s shelter near her. Although Clare and her family would still have faced suffering, Clare might at least have been able to survive and, eventually, heal.
“I encountered Clare’s story while interning at a nonprofit organization in Montana doing research on the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women epidemic. While I am not part of the Native community myself, this experience inspired the ideas I cover in this piece.” —Renny Jiang
