workings of privilege and power

Kayla and her brother Amry



News finally arrived from the Canadian High Commission, Kayla’s temporary visitor’s visa was denied. Kayla will not be travelling to Canada at the end of the month as planned. Kayla will not be taking part in the cultural immersion program that we have been planning for the past couple months. I have learned once again not to assume anything. I assumed Kayla would get her temporary visa. This assumption was based on my own naïve beliefs that a youth from another country seeking educational and leadership opportunities would be welcomed into Canada just as last year’s applicant, Alison Haris’ was welcomed.

Kayla’s visa application did not meet the requirements to satisfy the Canadian High Commission’s reviewing process. The application did not meet the requirements needed to ensure the minds of whoever reviewed Kayla’s application that she would not overstay her welcome in Canada. This conclusion was based on the following reasons: 1) lack of travel history; 2) purpose of visit; 3)current employment situation of Kayla’s parents; and 4) Kayla’s parents’ current personal assets and financial status.

The irony of the first reason, kayla’s lack of travel experience, had me sucking my teeth in one long stoops (for non-Caribbean readers a stoops is triggered when one is annoyed, impatient, and in disbelief over the sheer stupidity of a comment, situation, and or experience). I believe the irony here speaks for itself. The second reason had me puzzled and then angry. I could not understand how a cultural immersion program was not a sufficient enough purpose for a Grenadian youth to embark on a trip to Canada. A program that involves youth empowering activities such as taking part in a social justice youth camp, working on an organic farm and engaging in other educational activities that seek to assist youths in working for personal and social change. The third and fourth reasons, Kayla’s parent’s current employment situation, personal assets and financial status also caused me great confusion (am I just not getting it!) followed by another long stoops. As a friend put it simply and bluntly, “I guess we do not want ‘poor’ people’s children visiting our country.” In conclusion the Reviewer states if applicant decides to reapply she should do so only if your situation has changed significantly. More confusion and anger arose and I was left wondering how Kayla’s situation was going to change significantly in order to prove to the “Powers that Be” she is worthy enough to visit Canada.

I assumed Kayla’s visa application would be approved. I based these assumptions on last year’s acceptance of Alison Harris’ application, another Grenadian youth who comes from a similar background as Kayla. I based these assumptions on the same reasons that were used to deny Kayla’s right to travel. My assumptions were faulty. Perhaps if I did not assume anything I would have built a stronger application package for Kayla that may have included further references that proved Kayla’s ‘significant’ worthiness to travel. Through this experience i learn not only the danger of making assumptions but also the workings of privilege and power that deny many of our global brothers and sisters the right to travel and experience other parts of the world.