Free Lewelyn Dixon
March 24, 2025 9:11 AM Subscribe
Lewelyn Dixon has been a green card resident of the US for 50 years. She immigrated from the Philippines at age 15 and currently works at the University of Washington in Seattle as a lab technician. On Feb 28, while returning from visiting family in the Philippines, she was detained at Sea-Tac airport by ICE, and has now been held in the Tacoma ICE detention center for over three weeks.
The Northwest ICE Processing Center is privately owned by the GEO Group. Protests against the GEO Group have spread in recent years, with La Resistencia NW being one group at the forefront of organizing to spread the word about abuses at the Tacoma facility. Sign petitions here to free Rudy, Jose, Thomas, Daisy, Jose and Pedro.
Seattle Times link to article about Lewelyn Dixon (may not be free link): https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/lewelyn-dixon-uw-lab-technician-held-in-tacoma-ice-detention-center/
The Northwest ICE Processing Center is privately owned by the GEO Group. Protests against the GEO Group have spread in recent years, with La Resistencia NW being one group at the forefront of organizing to spread the word about abuses at the Tacoma facility. Sign petitions here to free Rudy, Jose, Thomas, Daisy, Jose and Pedro.
Seattle Times link to article about Lewelyn Dixon (may not be free link): https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/lewelyn-dixon-uw-lab-technician-held-in-tacoma-ice-detention-center/
The Seattle Times article says she kept her citizenship in the Philippines to protect family property.
posted by extramachine at 9:26 AM on March 24 [8 favorites]
posted by extramachine at 9:26 AM on March 24 [8 favorites]
As a Seattle resident, UW alum, and immigrant: I stand with Lewelyn, and hope that this (along with Seattle Children's canceling trans kids' care, along with Pike Place Market canceling Japanese-American events, etc) makes people more aware that living in a blue city in a blue state is not guaranteed to protect you from fascism.
Stand up and fight, or you'll be next.
posted by splitpeasoup at 9:34 AM on March 24 [27 favorites]
Stand up and fight, or you'll be next.
posted by splitpeasoup at 9:34 AM on March 24 [27 favorites]
The Seattle Times article says she kept her citizenship in the Philippines to protect family property.
oh you mean that thing so many US people do
I can think of a (US to Canada) friend in particular, he often moaned about his taxes, I bit my tongue
posted by ginger.beef at 9:38 AM on March 24 [8 favorites]
oh you mean that thing so many US people do
I can think of a (US to Canada) friend in particular, he often moaned about his taxes, I bit my tongue
posted by ginger.beef at 9:38 AM on March 24 [8 favorites]
robbyrobs none of us here on Metafilter can really speak to why a particular immigrant's status might have remained unchanged even having lived in the US a long time. Everyone has a different calculus and different/better/worse outside advice and tolerance for contact with the legal system.
I'm trying to assume good faith on your part but it's kind of an awful question. Why didn't she do it the right way? She did it a way that worked for her, and the ways it worked have been forcibly yanked out from under her. Have a little human sympathy.
posted by Lawn Beaver at 10:05 AM on March 24 [48 favorites]
I'm trying to assume good faith on your part but it's kind of an awful question. Why didn't she do it the right way? She did it a way that worked for her, and the ways it worked have been forcibly yanked out from under her. Have a little human sympathy.
posted by Lawn Beaver at 10:05 AM on March 24 [48 favorites]
I think the Philippines have only allowed dual citizenship since 2003?
Becoming a US citizen is a massive pain in the ass, and expensive.
posted by ryanrs at 10:23 AM on March 24 [10 favorites]
Becoming a US citizen is a massive pain in the ass, and expensive.
posted by ryanrs at 10:23 AM on March 24 [10 favorites]
Some countries really don't like dual citizenship. America nominally makes you renounce your foreign allegiances when you naturalize, but traditionally never actually enforces this.
If your citizenship is a country that might disown you if they get wind of your naturalization in the US, that's a really good reason to just stick with the green card.
posted by BungaDunga at 10:27 AM on March 24 [5 favorites]
If your citizenship is a country that might disown you if they get wind of your naturalization in the US, that's a really good reason to just stick with the green card.
posted by BungaDunga at 10:27 AM on March 24 [5 favorites]
Looks like the elderly are an up and coming threat to the US:
Elderly Indian Green Card holders forced to ‘voluntarily’ give up residency at US airports
Elderly Indian Green Card holders are being pressured by officials at US airports to give up their residency by ‘voluntarily’ signing Form I-407
Elderly Indian Green Card holders forced to ‘voluntarily’ give up residency at US airports
Elderly Indian Green Card holders are being pressured by officials at US airports to give up their residency by ‘voluntarily’ signing Form I-407
Ashwin Sharma, a Florida-based immigration attorney, told The Times of India (TOI) that he has handled several cases where elderly Indian Green Card holders were met with expulsion threats.posted by rambling wanderlust at 10:31 AM on March 24 [13 favorites]
“I have personally handled cases recently where the CBP has targeted elderly Indian green card holders, particularly grandparents who happen to have spent a bit longer outside the US, and pressured them to sign Form I-407 to ‘voluntarily’ surrender their lawful permanent resident status (green card),” Sharma told TOI.
He added, “And the moment they have tried to push back, they have been met with threats of detention or ‘removal’ by the CBP officers who have been emboldened by Trump to see themselves as judge, jury, and executioner.”
Do not surrender the Green Card
Another immigration attorney based in Seattle said that the Green Card cannot be revoked unless the holder ‘voluntarily’ surrenders it. Kripa Upadhyay urged individuals not to sign Form I-407 under pressure.
She explained, “If a Green Card holder has spent more than 365 days out of the US are deemed to have ‘abandoned’ their residence. Even if this is the allegation, the green card holder has the right to challenge this in court but they lose this right if they ‘voluntarily’ surrender at the airport!”
I was at Dulles International Airport in Virginia, just outside of DC, on Saturday morning to drop off my son – anecdata, but it was much quieter than I would’ve expected for mid-morning on a weekend day in spring.
I am guessing that the drop off in international travelers coming into the US is going to be far more cavernous than the current estimates reflect.
posted by reedbird_hill at 10:32 AM on March 24 [7 favorites]
I am guessing that the drop off in international travelers coming into the US is going to be far more cavernous than the current estimates reflect.
posted by reedbird_hill at 10:32 AM on March 24 [7 favorites]
Green card holders are obviously at greater risk but even citizenship won't protect you. The UK, for example, can deprive any naturalized British citizen of their citizenship even if they have no other citizenships and would leave them stateless.
This particular woman had paid her dues, was following procedures, and had no expectation of what occurred.
posted by vacapinta at 10:34 AM on March 24 [21 favorites]
This particular woman had paid her dues, was following procedures, and had no expectation of what occurred.
posted by vacapinta at 10:34 AM on March 24 [21 favorites]
If you're a state: as well as getting "the bad ones", it's important to make the occasional exemplar of being crushed under the state's boot even if you're one of "the good ones", to let everyone know where they stand.
posted by lalochezia at 10:49 AM on March 24 [1 favorite]
posted by lalochezia at 10:49 AM on March 24 [1 favorite]
Archive link for the Seattle Times article: https://archive.is/nZyit
posted by rrrrrrrrrt at 10:50 AM on March 24 [3 favorites]
posted by rrrrrrrrrt at 10:50 AM on March 24 [3 favorites]
Just another clarifying comment, a number of countries do not allow dual citizenship (you would automatically lose your original citizenship if you naturalized), and some countries do not allow dual citizenship for elected officials, or if you work in certain sensitive jobs.
The US defense industry, for example, will not let you get a security clearance with a foreign citizenship.
Again, nothing that is happening to Lewelyn Dixon is right or probably even legal to begin with, but she absolutely does not fall under any of the categories where it was already relevant. Even by the internationally glorious standards of border agents, notoriously kindly and incorruptible, never bigoted, ICE are just a bunch of capricious bullies.
posted by ivan ivanych samovar at 10:52 AM on March 24 [5 favorites]
The US defense industry, for example, will not let you get a security clearance with a foreign citizenship.
Again, nothing that is happening to Lewelyn Dixon is right or probably even legal to begin with, but she absolutely does not fall under any of the categories where it was already relevant. Even by the internationally glorious standards of border agents, notoriously kindly and incorruptible, never bigoted, ICE are just a bunch of capricious bullies.
posted by ivan ivanych samovar at 10:52 AM on March 24 [5 favorites]
For fuck's sake, we're not supposed to directly target other users but they can directly target us with their presumable ignorance and demonstrated hate? My mother was a 40-year green card holder because it's what she wanted to do. Fuck off with that question.
posted by Wood at 10:58 AM on March 24 [19 favorites]
posted by Wood at 10:58 AM on March 24 [19 favorites]
These are monstrous acts. People who work for ICE, people who work for DHS, people who work for other branches of the federal government, etc, all increasingly face the choice of whether or not to participate. It's not a matter of "policy" or "orders" or anything like that. Individuals face choices, period.
Critically, we frequently do not get to pick and choose which choices we are faced with, especially in the short term. Times change around us, and people are extremely imperfect at projecting future eventualities, especially in a situation where one is significantly psychologically invested, as in the case of a career. As such, it is worth extending the benefit of compassion to those who find themselves facing these choices. Nonetheless, at a certain point, blindness to the cruelty of one's acts can only be maintained by willful direction of attention away.
So it may be that a person has to choose between leaving a career they have pursued for however many years, or participating in a process which jails innocent elders. One of those options is monstrous, the other is a (possibly significant) personal cost. It is a matter of whether someone is willing to sacrifice some extent of their personal identity, social station and economic well being to avoid being professionally obligated to participate in gratuitous and racist cruelty to innocent people.
As citizens opposed to these acts, we must include the authors of these policies, and the political rhetoric which supports them, but it is worth consideration that the locus of agency of these policies is not with their authors, or with the writers of rhetoric.
posted by Smedly, Butlerian jihadi at 11:28 AM on March 24 [7 favorites]
Critically, we frequently do not get to pick and choose which choices we are faced with, especially in the short term. Times change around us, and people are extremely imperfect at projecting future eventualities, especially in a situation where one is significantly psychologically invested, as in the case of a career. As such, it is worth extending the benefit of compassion to those who find themselves facing these choices. Nonetheless, at a certain point, blindness to the cruelty of one's acts can only be maintained by willful direction of attention away.
So it may be that a person has to choose between leaving a career they have pursued for however many years, or participating in a process which jails innocent elders. One of those options is monstrous, the other is a (possibly significant) personal cost. It is a matter of whether someone is willing to sacrifice some extent of their personal identity, social station and economic well being to avoid being professionally obligated to participate in gratuitous and racist cruelty to innocent people.
As citizens opposed to these acts, we must include the authors of these policies, and the political rhetoric which supports them, but it is worth consideration that the locus of agency of these policies is not with their authors, or with the writers of rhetoric.
posted by Smedly, Butlerian jihadi at 11:28 AM on March 24 [7 favorites]
Immigration officers are becoming 'extreme' in how they vet travelers entering the U.S.
RASCOE: So in your latest article, you mentioned border officials are using aggressive questioning tactics with visa holders and tourists. What are you seeing?posted by rambling wanderlust at 11:48 AM on March 24 [8 favorites]
HACKMAN: Yeah. So we're seeing a lot of cases, and it's tough, Ayesha, because the government, in many cases, is unwilling or unable to give us all the facts in the case, but what we're seeing is people with relatively minor visa issues. So, let's say they're on a tourist visa and they're house-sitting for someone. Another example - someone who is a fiancé of a U.S. citizen coming in on a tourist visa and border officials saying, wait a second, that's illegal. You should be on a fiancé visa. You know, in the past, border officials would say, OK, there's a problem with your visa. You need to fix it and come back to us. Now, people are being sent to detention centers. They're being deported over these really minor violations, and it's scary for people.
RASCOE: Obviously, I'm not a lawyer and not privy to everything that ICE knows, but why not just deport someone who has problems with their visas immediately or just turn them around at the airport? Why shackle and chain them and keep them in ICE detention?
HACKMAN: I think some of the issues around shackling and really aggressive questioning that we've seen is, in some sense, just rogue officers that have fewer checks higher up in the chain. The reasons that people are being detained for much longer - not entirely clear to me. But often, if you are going to be deported, it's something as simple as you need to buy a plane ticket, and the government doesn't just let you buy any plane ticket. You have to buy an open plane ticket, which means they can put you on any flight, and those can run, you know, six, seven, $8,000. People don't often have that money, and so they're being detained longer so they can collect the money just to buy their plane ticket home.
It's a chillingly telling commentary on the current mood of the U.S.A. that the very first comment takes the "blame the victim" angle.
Why? At one time I would have said complexion played a part, but now we are in an era of raw xenophobia. Just being "other" is enough apparently.
BTW I know she committed a crime 24 years ago but she paid the price. Apparently the US takes the view that there is no such thing as rehabilitation.
posted by Zedcaster at 11:55 AM on March 24 [6 favorites]
Why? At one time I would have said complexion played a part, but now we are in an era of raw xenophobia. Just being "other" is enough apparently.
BTW I know she committed a crime 24 years ago but she paid the price. Apparently the US takes the view that there is no such thing as rehabilitation.
posted by Zedcaster at 11:55 AM on March 24 [6 favorites]
I'm having trouble imagining the reason for the length of the most recent famous Canadian detention was because she couldn't afford a plane ticket.
just rogue officers that have fewer checks higher up in the chain.
The purpose of a system is what it does. Lack of oversight is intentional.
posted by Mitheral at 12:01 PM on March 24 [5 favorites]
just rogue officers that have fewer checks higher up in the chain.
The purpose of a system is what it does. Lack of oversight is intentional.
posted by Mitheral at 12:01 PM on March 24 [5 favorites]
The two biggest right-wingers I know are a guy who is a citizen because his pregnant south-american mom gave birth here; the other is married to a naturalized immigrant and that spouse's non-english-speaking mother lives here -- I mean, "visits" but "goes back home to see family" when her visa needs renewing -- and works at the restaurant they own under-the-table.
I'm very torn between laughing and applauding when birthright citizenship is revoked for the one guy and ICE comes looking for grandma, or being ready to lie to law enforcement on their behalf. I'll probably do the latter anyways and have a clear conscience even though I'm still bristling after overhearing their opinions of drag performers.
posted by AzraelBrown at 12:12 PM on March 24 [3 favorites]
I'm very torn between laughing and applauding when birthright citizenship is revoked for the one guy and ICE comes looking for grandma, or being ready to lie to law enforcement on their behalf. I'll probably do the latter anyways and have a clear conscience even though I'm still bristling after overhearing their opinions of drag performers.
posted by AzraelBrown at 12:12 PM on March 24 [3 favorites]
> Just another clarifying comment, a number of countries do not allow dual citizenship (you would automatically lose your original citizenship if you naturalized), and some countries do not allow dual citizenship for elected officials, or if you work in certain sensitive jobs.
Also, many countries do not allow noncitizens to own property or hold certain types of financial assets -- for example, a bank savings or checking account at any bank other than one specifically assigned for noncitizens.
Even when some country permits dual citizenships, the qualifications necessary might be so specific as to amount to edge cases written as favors to cronies of the ruling class.
posted by at by at 12:38 PM on March 24 [2 favorites]
Also, many countries do not allow noncitizens to own property or hold certain types of financial assets -- for example, a bank savings or checking account at any bank other than one specifically assigned for noncitizens.
Even when some country permits dual citizenships, the qualifications necessary might be so specific as to amount to edge cases written as favors to cronies of the ruling class.
posted by at by at 12:38 PM on March 24 [2 favorites]
New Trump administration proposal would require legal permanent residents in the United States to surrender their social media profiles.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:57 PM on March 24 [5 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:57 PM on March 24 [5 favorites]
The main thing to understand about US immigration policy right now -- well, all policy but particularly immigration policy -- is that the racists and xenophobes are in charge. Everything else follows from this.
posted by mhum at 1:35 PM on March 24 [4 favorites]
posted by mhum at 1:35 PM on March 24 [4 favorites]
ignorant here Why did she not become a US citizen at some point during that 50yr green card time?
Does it matter?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:58 PM on March 24 [2 favorites]
Does it matter?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:58 PM on March 24 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Fixed reedbird_hill's comment above as requested.
posted by loup (staff) at 2:01 PM on March 24
posted by loup (staff) at 2:01 PM on March 24
With regard to dual citizenship and renunciation, "but
[the US] traditionally never actually enforces this."
There are a LOT of traditions and norms that are being ignored right now, and finding "fraud" on an application is as easy as Cardinal Richelieu's six lines to hang an innocent man.
posted by idb at 2:17 PM on March 24 [7 favorites]
[the US] traditionally never actually enforces this."
There are a LOT of traditions and norms that are being ignored right now, and finding "fraud" on an application is as easy as Cardinal Richelieu's six lines to hang an innocent man.
posted by idb at 2:17 PM on March 24 [7 favorites]
While we're discussing terrible things being openly planned for legal immigrants to the USA, here's your reminder that during DJT45, Stephen Miller proposed that a special office of DHS be established that reviewed naturalizations in search of visa violations, tax code infractions, minor crimes, or other offenses that could be be used as a pretext to strip away already awarded citizenship.
It never made it past the spitballing stage, but the way things are going, I fully expect to see this come back.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:22 PM on March 24 [12 favorites]
It never made it past the spitballing stage, but the way things are going, I fully expect to see this come back.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:22 PM on March 24 [12 favorites]
pretext to strip away already awarded citizenship
Okay, then. Need to step up our move to Europe. Wow.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 2:30 PM on March 24 [1 favorite]
Okay, then. Need to step up our move to Europe. Wow.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 2:30 PM on March 24 [1 favorite]
Why did she not become a US citizen at some point during that 50yr green card time?
I came to the US in 1956 with my parents on green cards. I was 4 at the time. Through the years I considered becoming a US citizen and even got the forms a couple of times. To answer all the questions asked on the forms would require you to give up your rights. The one question that bothered me the most was:
“List every crime you’ve ever committed, including those you were not arrested for.”
Then at the bottom you sign it saying you didn’t lie on the form or they could kick you out.
Another thing was the US requirement that you renounce your other citizenship. This has changed over time and isn’t as big a deal now.
Shortly after my mother passed in 2008, my father realized that the exclusions for inheritance tax didn’t apply as generously to non-
citizens. As he put it, he’d willingly paid his taxes for over 50 years to the government but preferred not to have me have to pay more when he passed. So finally in 2009 we both became citizens.
posted by jvbthegolfer at 3:07 PM on March 24 [9 favorites]
I came to the US in 1956 with my parents on green cards. I was 4 at the time. Through the years I considered becoming a US citizen and even got the forms a couple of times. To answer all the questions asked on the forms would require you to give up your rights. The one question that bothered me the most was:
“List every crime you’ve ever committed, including those you were not arrested for.”
Then at the bottom you sign it saying you didn’t lie on the form or they could kick you out.
Another thing was the US requirement that you renounce your other citizenship. This has changed over time and isn’t as big a deal now.
Shortly after my mother passed in 2008, my father realized that the exclusions for inheritance tax didn’t apply as generously to non-
citizens. As he put it, he’d willingly paid his taxes for over 50 years to the government but preferred not to have me have to pay more when he passed. So finally in 2009 we both became citizens.
posted by jvbthegolfer at 3:07 PM on March 24 [9 favorites]
Stephen Miller proposed
Three words which (hopefully) will forever precede descriptions of ideas designed to cause misery and despair in people who don't understand how some people hate themselves enough to take it out on others to feel something.
This is all just act 1 of the three-act play called "Deportation Of The Undesirable", the test-bed act. Next may be changing the rules to just revoke all green cards, and then the third is finding ways to revoke birthright citizenship in a way that lets anyone whose family hasn't been here since before the Revolution (and not as a slave) and who isn't in the in-group be deported.
As a trans person whose grandparents on my mother's side came over here from Germany in 1929 (grandfather) and 1933 (grandmother), they could get me even though we can trace my father's family back to Jamestown in 1620. They'll do it just so they can.
posted by mephron at 6:37 PM on March 24 [2 favorites]
Three words which (hopefully) will forever precede descriptions of ideas designed to cause misery and despair in people who don't understand how some people hate themselves enough to take it out on others to feel something.
This is all just act 1 of the three-act play called "Deportation Of The Undesirable", the test-bed act. Next may be changing the rules to just revoke all green cards, and then the third is finding ways to revoke birthright citizenship in a way that lets anyone whose family hasn't been here since before the Revolution (and not as a slave) and who isn't in the in-group be deported.
As a trans person whose grandparents on my mother's side came over here from Germany in 1929 (grandfather) and 1933 (grandmother), they could get me even though we can trace my father's family back to Jamestown in 1620. They'll do it just so they can.
posted by mephron at 6:37 PM on March 24 [2 favorites]
The US used to take away citizenship from people born in the US who took on other citizenships, some time in the late 70s someone took this to the Supreme Court and won - a whole lot of people got their citizenships back, for a while they'd ask if you have a good reason why you want to keep your US, "I want to be able to visit my family" was good enough - these days they don't even bother to ask.
Why do people have a green card for decades? I had mine for 20 years, we were planning on moving back to AoNZ when the kids started high school, about 15 years in I considered taking US citizenship but the wait at the time for processing was 9 years, there seemed little point. Given the impositions the US IRS puts on expat citizens (you have to report to the IRS every bank account you have, every interest you have in land or a company, it's very expensive) I'm glad I didn't (and I've filed a 1040NR for the past 20 years so I can claim my 401K back, which has been another whole nightmare)
posted by mbo at 6:45 PM on March 24 [4 favorites]
Why do people have a green card for decades? I had mine for 20 years, we were planning on moving back to AoNZ when the kids started high school, about 15 years in I considered taking US citizenship but the wait at the time for processing was 9 years, there seemed little point. Given the impositions the US IRS puts on expat citizens (you have to report to the IRS every bank account you have, every interest you have in land or a company, it's very expensive) I'm glad I didn't (and I've filed a 1040NR for the past 20 years so I can claim my 401K back, which has been another whole nightmare)
posted by mbo at 6:45 PM on March 24 [4 favorites]
Newsweek article quotes her lawyer as saying, "It was the travel that triggered the issue and if she had not traveled, she would not be removable from the United States," and then, the lawyer says that "noncitizens at ports of entry, which include airports, can be classified as a 'returning resident' or an 'arriving alien,' which are 'subject to mandatory detention.'"
I'm a legal permanent resident and have been for years. Didn't realize that I could be classified as an "arriving alien" at ports of entry. In the past two weeks I have decided that I will not be travelling outside the US.
I do feel that the lawyer is being a wee bit optimistic when he says "if she had not traveled, she would not be removable" because, as we know, authoritarians just make shit up to rationalize whatever they want to do anyway. But certainly, I am convinced that presenting at a port of entry makes us low-hanging fruit.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 7:46 PM on March 24 [9 favorites]
I'm a legal permanent resident and have been for years. Didn't realize that I could be classified as an "arriving alien" at ports of entry. In the past two weeks I have decided that I will not be travelling outside the US.
I do feel that the lawyer is being a wee bit optimistic when he says "if she had not traveled, she would not be removable" because, as we know, authoritarians just make shit up to rationalize whatever they want to do anyway. But certainly, I am convinced that presenting at a port of entry makes us low-hanging fruit.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 7:46 PM on March 24 [9 favorites]
First they came for the immigrants...
posted by fragmede at 1:33 AM on March 25 [1 favorite]
posted by fragmede at 1:33 AM on March 25 [1 favorite]
Increasingly seems more like first they came for everybody, and nobody was safe.
posted by Pouteria at 2:45 AM on March 25 [2 favorites]
posted by Pouteria at 2:45 AM on March 25 [2 favorites]
A comment on visas, which may not directly apply to this incident. My daughter (who died a year ago) was an immigration attorney. She often said that people would want to ask her a "quick question" about their visa. She would reply "To answer your question I would need to interview you for 2 hours to understand your situation". That's how complex visas are in the US.
posted by neuron at 9:13 AM on March 25 [5 favorites]
posted by neuron at 9:13 AM on March 25 [5 favorites]
Just an FYI for American citizens living abroad. Other governments also do (or have done) data-sharing with the US.
A cousin of mine applied for a security clearance a few years ago and told me they had questioned him about me (!). What they were asking about was something known to the UK government but not something I had ever disclosed to the US government. So that was a bit of a shock to me...
posted by vacapinta at 9:28 AM on March 25 [2 favorites]
A cousin of mine applied for a security clearance a few years ago and told me they had questioned him about me (!). What they were asking about was something known to the UK government but not something I had ever disclosed to the US government. So that was a bit of a shock to me...
posted by vacapinta at 9:28 AM on March 25 [2 favorites]
« Older Sloan - the Canadian power pop band non-Canadians... | ALA Statements on the Elimination of IMLS Library... Newer »
posted by robbyrobs at 9:14 AM on March 24