Jay Stansel on Cambodian Deportation
Interview by Miae Kim
Tape Sync by Scott Bartlett of Jack Straw Productions
1 CD, 20 Tracks
TRACK 1 – 6:45 – Intro
JAY: Yeah, hi Miae.
My name is Jay Stansel. I’m an assistant federal public defender in Seattle, Washington.
Well, as a federal public defender, we represent indigent people in federal court. Typically criminal defendants but there’s another category of case we get involved in when people file what’s called a writ of habeas corpus, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which claims unlawful or unconstitutional imprisonment. And in 1999, probably the winter, even the December before 1999 we got word that there were a number of people, several thousand across the country that were being locked up by the immigration service when people who had been ordered deported but they had not been returned to their home countries because their countries refused to take them. I had been talking to a reporter about a line of cases, one of which arose out of Sacramento and because I had expertise on immigration law, I was consulting on this Sacramento case and I just commented to my reporter friend that it would be interesting if we had cases like that in Seattle and her response was well, you do, you have 200 of these fellows that were locked up in the detention facility that I would visit every week. And what turned out is that they were on a floor with no access to free phones to the federal public defender or anybody for that matter and there were approximately 200 guys who were just lost and shoved away in a warehouse, potentially for their lifetimes and so I asked her for some names and I visited the facility and brought one fellow down – his name is Dennis Botuchenko from the Soviet Union when it was the Soviet Union and since then of course the Soviet Union dissolved and he is basically a man without a state, because he is not a citizen of any country now. And Dennis, like everybody else up there, thought that he was locked up there for goodness knows how long and I asked Dennis if he would like me to be his attorney to try to get him out and try to obtain his freedom and he just lit up like a Christmas tree and said of course. And took about two dozen pro se petitions up into the jail so that people could fill these writs of habeas corpus out on their own and ask that we be their lawyers and so within a couple of months our office had been appointed to about 160 cases. Kim Ho Ma was one of those cases and ultimately he was one of five individuals representing a cross-section of the 160 that was chosen by the district court here in Seattle to be representative of the whole group and we combined those cases together and combined legal briefing on it and legal argument in order to litigate all 160 cases here in Seattle. So I met Kim shortly after this whole process began. He was housed in a local jail and he had a scheduled interview with the immigration service who had at that time a process they were claiming was sufficient to guarantee that people were released when appropriate. All of these fellows, like Kim had committed crimes and had served their jail sentences but they were being held after they had seen the immigration judge and after the immigration judge had ordered them deported potentially for ever because the immigration service was stepping in and saying we really don’t think he’s appropriate for release to the community. So I met Kim sight unseen one day at the jail to get him prepared for that interview and he struck me immediately as a person who is very smart, a young man who is very smart and also very angry at the injustice that was happening to him and all the people around him. And so that was back in 1999. ultimately the government, we won the group of five cases with a unanimous five-judge opinion here in Seattle and the Department of Justice I think focused on the Seattle case along with several others, but the Seattle case in particular because it was being at that point cited across the country as legal authority to obtain the freedom of other people. So the government immediately filed a piece on our cases in Seattle and then abandoned appeals for all but Kim Ho Ma, of the first group of five, I think they believed Kim was somehow their best case and I always believed he was my best case too. So over the course of the years they chose to focus and treat Kim Ho Ma as the lead case and when he won, when my colleague and I won at the ninth circuit court of appeals, then they filed for a writ of cercirary, or a writ of review before the US Supreme Court. That was ultimately heard in 2001.
TRACK 2 – 4:54 – History of argument – 5th amendment
Well, the history of our argument was it dates back to the Fifth Amendment to the constitution, which says you can’t be deprived of liberty without due process of law. Over time that’s been interpreted to prevent essentially what they’re doing with Kim Ho Ma and all these other folks, which was preventative to detention. None of these individuals had been charged with a new crime. Most of them had committed a crime, but had served the full prison sentence for that crime, so they were all in INS detention for no other reason than INS and by definition the executive or the president and his delegates believed that these people were too dangerous to be let out. It has real, for a layperson real analogues to the Japanese internment, in my mind. The legal theory is somewhat different, but in any case it was the executive of the country saying trust us, we can’t release these people, they’re too dangerous to be released. And at the same time refusing to charge them with any crime and not having the statutory authority to do it. And a lot of the legal theories went back to the late 1800s when some of the first constitutional cases in the immigration context dealt with Chinese immigrants and the Chinese exclusion and deportation laws of the 1880s. So ultimately what the government’s position boiled down to was that their legal theory rested on an interpretation of the Fifth Amendment that was harsher and more draconian than at any point in history, because the case precedence that we relied on went back to a case called Wong Wing which was from 1893, I think. Went back to a Cold War case called Mezze. Where the government conceded, with Mezze for instance, at the height of the Cold War, that they could for a stateless person, a person that they could not return to an iron curtain country, that because he was at the border seeking entry to the United States he would be locked up, but had he entered the country. Had he accomplished a formal entry into the country that he would certainly be allowed to be free. Whereas we found ourselves in 1999 at the close of the century dealing with some 4000 mostly young men who had not only entered the country, but had entered the country fifteen, twenty-five years earlier and the government was saying no, we want more authority to lock people up than we had at the height of the cold war. It was constitutionally in my mind a preposterous position to take but it was a position taken both by the Clinton administration and then by the Bush administration in our litigation. So primarily our clients were from the former Soviet Union, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. And ultimately we won our case at the Supreme Court not on the constitutional basis, but on the basis that the statute should be interpreted in such a way that avoids what otherwise would have been a very dramatic constitutional showdown on the meaning of the Fifth Amendment in this context. So in June 2001 along with a case that was joined with Kim Ho Ma’s called Jadvidas, we prevailed at the Supreme Court and the law that had arisen around Kim Ho’s situation became the law of the country.
Yeah, Jennifer Wellman and I were the two lawyers for Kim Ho Ma all the way up through the Supreme Court.
It was Kim Ho Ma versus Ashcroft. Or
TRACK 3 – 1:21 – significance of case
By that time, since we had prevailed, it was Ashcroft versus Kim Ho Ma.
Yes, technically from a lawyer’s standpoint the Supreme Court dodged the constitutional issue by interpreting the statute in a way that avoided making a definitive ruling on the constitution. Though much of the decision, the content of the decision, talks about and reaffirms what I think is our view of the reach and the breadth of the due process clause, of the Fifth Amendment. It was significant in that the government had never asked for this much power over non-citizens before these cases. And they failed to get it. And I’m real proud of my offices’ commitment to the litigation and our work on the case, though all over the country there were people in public defender offices and other private attorneys who were working on many hundreds of cases as well.
TRACK 4 – 8:06 – Kim’s original crime
Well, Kim Ho’s crime was he, like many of his other friends came to this country and were introduced into urban American poverty and came into adolescence at a time that also coincided with the rise of a lot of gang activity. Certainly in the western United States, I think all over. So Kim was convicted of a gang-related shooting. The formal charge that he was convicted of was first-degree manslaughter. I think he was given a 33-month sentence and he served two years of that, so I think he actually spent about two years in jail prison. Then he spent another two and a half years in the immigration prison, essentially not having any new charge whatsoever. So his unlawful INS detention eclipsed the amount of time that he did for the crime itself. But I can comment in general about what’s happened with a lot of these young men without being specific to Kim Ho’s parents, who are still in Seattle for instance, that for many of these, particularly southeast Asian kids, they came as refugees from, in the case of Cambodia, horrific circumstances of the genocide of the Khmer Rouge. The families and the adults that escaped the Khmer Rouge, that brought their children to this country, had a very high percentage of families dealing with mental illness, such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Highly distressed refugee population that then became extremely isolated and insulated from the rest of America. And having very few tools with which to deal with raising children, particularly adolescents, in urban hard-core poverty. So it was a very typical cycle to see amongst a lot of these family, like Kim Ho, to see parents who didn’t know what was going on when their children would come home with gang colors on and so forth. At the same time the children are a minority within minority populations. And physically smaller in stature and many of them from an early age bonded together both for the camaraderie and friendship, but also for security, because a lot of them were growing up in very rough neighborhoods. So kids got in trouble and parents had an increasingly difficult time trying to understand the trouble that they were in and trying to understand the actual, the very real jeopardy that their kids were in. Because all of these kids were not only in jeopardy of going to prison, but they were in jeopardy of being returned to these countries that their parents had fled. And that was just such a common misapprehension that because of cultural isolation and the lack of learning the English that the elders of these groups rarely had the wherewithal or the resources or the education or the psychic energy to apply for citizenship. And they certainly didn’t know how important it was to apply for citizenship. So without being citizens, they’re just, they continue to try to heal their very broken lives by raising a family here without understanding that if their kids get in trouble here, not only would they get in trouble and go to jail or prison, but they could get deported for the rest of their lives, or in the case early on for the Cambodians, they could get locked up from their point of view, forever. For life. The immigration service used to call these guys “lifers” before that term became publicly known. They would call these guys “lifers” because they would come into detention and they would laugh and the kids would say I got ordered deported, now what happens, and they would say you’re here for life, we’ll lock you up for life. So you have this unsophisticated, largely uneducated, certainly not English-speaking group of elders that experienced intolerable cruelty and hardship and terror at the hands of the Khmer Rouge. And then they flee, due to the good graces, in their eyes, of the United States, and here they are, totally not understanding what is going on when they live in the land of freedom and their kids are not only getting locked up for doing a wrong thing, and serving a time for doing a wrong thing, but they are now being locked up forever. Now, we were, I’m very happy to say we were successful in our litigation, where we won the freedom of people in Seattle and due to our cases some thousands of people were released across the country, but what happened to the Cambodians then is the same thing that could happen next year or five years for now for the Vietnamese or the Laotian. The state of Cambodia started accepting people back in 2002. So not surprisingly Kim Ho Ma, who’s case went to the Supreme Court, was pretty close to the top of the list of the US Government’s hopes for requests for travel documents to Cambodia. So in October of 2002 Kim was deported. So now this cycle, this refugee cycle of people who have fled and through some miracle pulled their children out of the jungles of Cambodia, out of the hands of the Khmer Rouge, and somehow managed to get into this new world in the United States are being re-traumatized all over again by having their children ripped out of their own arms and sent back to Cambodia, a place where for many elders in this community, they still firmly believe that people are still subjected to torture or death immediately upon exiting the airplane. So it’s very troubling and sad thing to watch families being broken up when they have experienced all too much trauma in their lifetimes, more trauma than anybody should have to experience.
TRACK 5 – 3:46 – Kim and Jay’s family
Well, he has. Over many of our fellows, we call them the old timers, the folks that were released back in ’99 through our litigation. They mostly got back to their lives again and got back to their wives or their mothers and fathers and got jobs and just were back in their community and most of them would just as soon forget what they had gone through. But Kim Ho was unable to do that because the government kept focusing on his case. They wanted to overturn his case. Excuse me. They wanted to overturn his case in order to overturn everyone else’s case. So Kim was never able to walk away from the burden of potentially being incarcerated all over again if the lawyers failed and if the legal theory and legal arguments failed. But this at the same time was not something that he could talk to his parents, just like when he was in school he couldn’t talk to his parents about the pressures he was seeing at school that led him to do whatever he did back then. So Kim started hanging out more and more with my family and my sons Toby and Adam. My wife Dory became an informal surrogate mother to him and counselor and Kim would routinely drop by with baskets of food from the local Cambodian market and just to be with somebody who understood what he was facing, what the risks were and what his life was. So he became like a son to us, a brother to us and a big brother to my children. So though I’ve worked with immigrants in one way or the other since 1988 this was the first time that I really felt like I experienced a family member being deported. We over, especially when they started taking people back, and there was a great deal of fear by his family that Kim Ho would be amongst the next groups, we became increasingly close to his mother and his father and his siblings as well. It’s very tragic that he had to be deported and very tragic that his mother who literally carried him out of the jungles of Cambodia, walking two days straight without sleep with him wrapped in a scarf around her neck, that she has to be, she has to lose this miracle child that somehow survived that trek to the refugee camp. From my point of view and I know for the rest of my family it’s been, the silver lining has been the very rich experience of being brought into this whole community of people and feeling like family to a whole nation and a whole group of people here in Seattle and particularly Kim Ho’s family. So yes, we are going, I’m taking a leave of absence and we’ll be in Cambodia for six months, beginning in a couple of weeks now.
TRACK 6 – 1:23 – amount defended/deported
That’s a good question. Roughly speaking I think we’ve had a total of seventy Cambodian-American clients were put in immigration detention and whose freedom we worked for. There have been maybe ten of those folks who have been deported. That’s just my rough guess. There’s probably a total of fourteen or fifteen hundred Cambodian-American, mostly men, waiting to get deported right now. I should know this. It’s approximately 110, 112 that have been deported, thus far, beginning in June of 2002. There’ s another group that I’ve heard is gathering that will be deported in early December.
TRACK 7 – 3:00 – how does immigration system work?
Well, it works in two different ways. In one way of looking at it, it works in two different ways. If you are from a country that accepts people back, you’re ordered deported and you’re gone, and that’s an extremely sad and tragic event for many families and it’s been that way for over a hundred years. What still happens with the people who are not readily deportable, whereas if you’re a Laotian or Vietnamese there’s no repatriation agreement at all, so those folks if they commit a crime that makes them deportable, they’ll serve their time, they’ll go into immigration detention, they’ll be ordered deported, and then because of the litigation that we won, they will be released sooner or later. It may take a couple months. You’re right, to go back to the community and essentially be on an order of supervision by the immigration authorities here in the United States, only to be deported maybe five or ten years from now when an agreement is signed. Cuba is another country where there is a huge number of Cubans out there who are dealing with this issue. For the Cambodians, it’s still the removals to Cambodia are still at a very slow pace. By and large, we’ve been successful in getting those individuals out and back to their families as well. Though some of them, like one client who has US citizen children, a US citizen wife, was only able to go home for about three months before he was removed to Cambodia. I should also mention that one of the things, and by the time this airs we’ll know the answer to this, but there is currently a case up at the Supreme Court that is testing the scope and how broadly the decision of Javidiz and Kim Ho Ma governs and has particular ramifications for Cuban-Americans who are here and who are in a legal sense people at the border seeking entry when they have been taken into immigration custody. So there’s two active Cuban cases that should be decided any week now by the Supreme Court.
TRACK 8 – 3:41 – reasons not to deport
I think there are many layers of tragedy that are largely ignored by the policy-makers in this country and one of them is that the experiences that these families went through are unimaginable. For I’d say the vast majority of congressional representatives. I don’t think anybody should revisit trauma to any of these families ever. I don’t think any child whose family escapes any country whether it’s Somalia or Iraq or Cambodia who then grows up and is largely, is totally Americanized and doesn’t hold, or holds little if any connection to their home country, I don’t think any of those refugee children should ever be deported. I think if they do harm they should be convicted of a crime and serve their sentence and be allowed to return to their family. What many of us are advocating for with the Cambodian experience, as the most illustrative example is to just simply have a rule that once you enter as a refugee you are granted permanent safe haven from the countries that you fled. And there’s another aspect of this too. I think it’s a tragedy for any refugee to be deported to the country that they fled. But one might argue, and people do argue that if they do harm or they do a bad thing in this country they should pay for it and they’re here as a generous gesture of the United States but the truly innocent people involved in this are the mothers and the wives and the children of the men that are getting deported and the refugees that are getting deported. And nobody can look Kim’s mother in the eye and tell her she should suffer again after having saved her family through insufferable odds that she should suffer again by having her miracle child taken away from her forever. And I don’t think people are thinking about that. I don’t think they were thinking about that when they dramatically expanded the reach of the criminal immigration laws in 1996 in a way that largely ruled out any defense to deportation to anybody, let alone refugees. And while the immigration law I think needs to be reformed on a whole host of levels I think one of the most immediate places to reform is to prevent the re-traumatizing by official US sanctions, deportation of families that have experienced all too much trauma already in their lives.
TRACK 9 – 4:48 – immigration/deportation legislature
Well, in 1996 there are two different sets of changes to the immigration act that dramatically changed the landscape of immigration law. Prior to ’96, if nearly anyone committing a crime would be able to speak to the immigration judge, explain his or her circumstances, demonstrate how hard it would be or how wrong it would be or how traumatic it would be for deportation to take place and obtain a waiver of deportation. And this only makes sense because for every hard and fast rule one can say about deportation, one can also point to an individual who is deserving of an exception to that rule. So the 1996 law large eliminated waivers of deportation by greatly expanding the definition for what’s called an aggravated felony. To the point that people who had been convicted of misdemeanor assaults and given no jail time but one year suspended sentence were considered aggravated felons and they’re after ordered deported with no defense. So while the law had been harsh all along and while the system had been enormously flawed in many places in the country by questionable work by immigration judges, by poor enforcement tactics and unconstitutional practices by the INS, it was a system that still seemed to allow for a second chance for people who deserved it and in 1996 they wiped it out. They wiped it out for not only Cambodians but for Mexicans, for everybody. And I think it was a heartless, wrong-headed thing to do. And it cost an enormous amount of money to engage in this enforcement practice that is, that always comes after any individual has served a jail or prison sentence. For the Cambodians, and the other individuals who weren’t getting deported this was a hidden tragedy for many years because if your kids aren’t getting deported, the community doesn’t really understand the extent of the problem, and so for the Latino communities where kids were getting deported, young men were getting deported, they had an understanding of how harsh the law had become. For the Cambodian, Vietnamese, and Laotian communities, I think there’s a real element of shame for a lot of these families and so I think a lot of the communities just didn’t understand that this was an issue, that this was a problem. Children were getting ordered deported, but families weren’t talking about it amongst their communities and they didn’t have to deal with it because kids weren’t getting deported at that point in time but it’s taken on a different flavor now and there are many immigrant advocates and Cambodian-Americans across the country that are advocating for a change in the law and they’re trying to reach out and gather allies such as the Vietnamese-American and Laotian-American communities. So ’96 was the start of what’s turned into a flood of deportations to all countries all over the world, and people have been fighting ever since to try and roll it back. And input some, insert some justice back into the immigration act.
TRACK 10 – 3:15 – series of laws against immigrants
Well, I think unfortunately there’s a sad history going back to the 1880s of heartlessly deporting people out of this country who have very intense and clear and heartfelt connections to this country. I think for every tragic Cambodian story we could come up with there are tragic stories from the 1880s of families that are ripped apart because of a totally racist immigration laws at that time. The immigration changes in the 1880s were large aimed at one particular population – the Chinese, and fueled by explicit statements, racist statements about the Chinese immigrants are raping white women and they’re all drug addicts and they’re taking our jobs. Many of these claims back then have a lot of resonance to the claims of the right wing today. And yet the reality on the ground at that time as now is that families are being ripped apart and there’s no purpose to doing that when we all live on the same planet. So and this is the hardest thing to get a lot of the Cambodian-American community to understand. For years they looked to the US government as their savior and now the US government acts as their oppressor to their community. And what they don’t understand is this has been going on for a very long time and it’s been one of the traditional, though totally inappropriate, safety valves for popular discontent about the economy and various other things just to blame it on a group of immigrants, whether it’s the Chinese or at times the Italians or at times the Irish. Everybody’s fallen under the racist aims of conservative, xenophobic and racist activists and politicians in the United States. It has been going on for a long time, but it doesn’t mean it has to keep going. I think it’s what makes this country great is its diversity and that’s what makes us strong, and I think it’s… In my mind the immigration laws and how they kept getting worse and worse and worse decade after decade is really a blasphemy to what we are all about in this country and concepts of basic fairness and democratic thinking.
TRACK 11 – 4:23 – exclusionary/racist public policy
I realize I gave you a very long answer. I do think it’s a continuation of what has been decades upon decades of extremely wrong-headed and at the heart racist public policy. And many people said that in for instance the Cambodian deportations, did this come about because of 9/11? Because the deportations did follow that tragedy on the east coast, where our own country fell under attack. And I don’t think so, and I don’t think that September 11th means that we have to think differently about immigrants and refugees, and I think one of the saddest things that we’ve come to following 9/11 is this sense of pervasive fear of people on the outside trying to hurt us and how that has been used by the right wing to ratchet up the draconian laws that are already so draconian and to limit civil rights and human rights in this country and to further wreak damage in the immigrant and refugee communities all over the country. I think that’s a horrible trend and I think it has the potential of being a trend that will go on for decades, because the war on terrorism is a war against an unseen enemy that can never be proven to be vanquished, and as a consequence, if people are willing to buy into racial profiling and no fly lists for airplanes and harsher and harsher border security issues and you could build a wall ten miles high around this country and we’re still not going to be safe. But currently it’s the popular thinking of quite a bit of the American public I’m afraid, and the ultimate victims are people who relatively speaking are absolutely harmless. The post 9/11-related initiatives in prosecutions and so forth, there’d be huge sweeps of airports under the auspices of protecting our borders and protecting us from terrorism and the only people that were getting rounded up were undocumented workers doing what they’d been doing for hundreds of years, just trying to make a living in a place that will pay them to feed their families and to feed their babies. So I think there is an ominous trend that though this has been a very sorry and tragic history dating back to the 1880s, I think that the power that the federal government has been seeking over the last number of years is, particularly since 1996 and even more so since 9/11, unprecedented in the history of our country. And if that power is consolidated against immigrants and refugees I think we’ll all suffer greatly.
TRACK 12 – 2:20 – working to change immigration law
Yeah, there have been many of us, many Cambodian-Americans and many immigrant advocates who have been working to change the immigration law to accommodate a number of problems with it. Ideally I think the laws of 1996 should just simply be rolled back the law be put in the place where it was at that time, and allow people the opportunity to seek a second chance if they’ve made a mistake. Short of that, and I think unfortunately we have to think more pragmatically, it makes sense to at least look at the circumstances of refugee families that have fled persecution from their home countries as well as asylum, people who have been granted asylum, which essentially means that they have met the definition for refugees. I think if we could acknowledge that the Cambodian situation is representative of what many, many communities are facing, like the Somalis for instance or the Sudanese. Just name your place of horrific conflict that’s beyond the imagination of most Americans, I think looking at these groups would make, would be a good place to start, acknowledging that these families have experienced enough hardship, they do not need to be ripped apart. And so there are a number of us who are working together to try to develop strategies for making, creating statutory changes and also administrative changes to administrative approaches to these communities.
TRACK 13 – 4:20 – closure, impropriety of current laws, loss
Yeah, actually the, what, and I’ll, a couple ways of looking at this, but as I have gone through this and as a lawyer, for five years I represented people in deportation proceedings and sometimes we’d lose and it would be really sad and I’d see my clients get deported. But it wasn’t until now that I had an inkling of what family members really feel when it happens and it does. And I saw my own children crying themselves to sleep because their brother was getting deported, that Kim Ho was gone. And once you understand, once you feel that, you start realizing how morally bankrupt it is for us to draw borders around ourselves and say you can’t cross from there to here. And how it defies logic. We’re more and more in a world that is emphasizing the international flow of commerce and capital. I think it’s nonsense to imagine that people don’t have the right on this planet to go where they want to go. And you can still protect this country from terrorism searching for and rooting out terrorists, but it makes no one safe to deport a 21-year-old Mexican kids that has been here since he was two years old, it makes no one safer to deport Kim Ho Ma who left Cambodia when he was two years old. Borders are a preposterous thing and it’s an evil that I think abstractly is one of the most important things for us to work to overcome. So I had this conversation with a friend that I got to know who is a deportation officer with the immigration authorities here. And he’s from another country and his brother still lives there, and I asked him how things were going in the post-9/11 area and he just shook his head and said his brother was just trying his darndest just to come visit. Just to come visit, and he couldn’t. Here’s a fellow who’s working for the immigration service of the United States and his own brother can’t come to visit. Can’t get on an airplane and fly to the other side of the planet and land and just see his nieces and nephews and his brother. And I think it’s astoundingly wrong-headed to think that whether it’s 130-years of repression of non-citizens, that we can’t turn back the clock and do it right now. So I’m always wishing for peace in a world without borders, now.
Okay, thank you. Okay, thanks Miae. Bye.
Okay. Bye-bye. Oh.
Yeah, I tried to behave myself but my hands are active, though.
TRACK 14 – 0:10 – Ominous trend pickup
I think it’s an ominous trend.
TRACK 15 – 0:18 – generous gesture pickup
They’re here as a generous gesture from the United States.
TRACK 16 – 0:35 – revisit trauma pickup
Okay, I can do that. I don’t think anybody should revisit trauma to any of these families, ever. Or can I do it another way? I don’t think anybody should re-introduce trauma to any of these families, ever.
TRACK 17 – 0:24 – Cambodian market pickup
Kim would routinely drop by with exotic foods from a Cambodian market just to be with somebody. How’d that sound?
TRACK 18 – 0:19 – back to lives pickup
They all mostly got back to their lives again. Got back to their wives…. okay. They all mostly got back to their lives again, back to their wives.
TRACK 19 – 0:33 – parents didn’t understand pickup
Parents who didn’t have a clue when their kids would come home with gang colors on and so forth. Okay, thank you, you’re right. Parents who didn’t have a clue what was going on when their kids came home with gang colors.
TRACK 20 – 2:46