You are :
1/6/2002
|
Home »» Reports
|
Egyptians Abroad: Lost rights at home and abroad
|
20/8/2006
Introduction:
Egyptian workers abroad is a humanitarian issue at its core. It originated from a set of political, economic and social circumstances. In the age of economic deterioration, low level of living, increase in the unemployment rates in Egypt, it became only natural to witness a huge increase in the number of Egyptians traveling to work abroad, a trend that flourished in the 1970's.
If Egyptians working abroad helped in solving the problem of unemployment, they faced huge obstacles while working in their destination countries, and in some instances they had to do jobs not consistent with the general principles of immigrants rights. Some of them were subject to trade, lived in inhuman conditions less than the conditions of workers from other states, because they don't have the necessary documents (illegal immigration). Besides, many of them faced imprisonment and illegal detention because the Egyptian embassies abroad ignored them and didn't intervene for their protection from imprisonment and violations, either murder or stealing.
Most eminent among the problems that Egyptian abroad faced lately was the Mansoura University students case, who visited the USA in an exchange between University of Mansoura, and Montana University. The FBI thought they escaped to commit acts related to terrorism, and they related them to Qa'eda, contrary to what was declared by Mansoura University by Mrs. Nagwa Nawar, the English Language Centre Director, that the students lost their way because they do not know English.
Because of the importance of the Egyptian workers' abroad problems, EOHR produced many reports in such regard, starting by "Egyptians in Gulf: slaves to the sponsorship system" on 1995, tackling the problems and violations they face in the Gulf states, especially those resulting from the sponsorship system.
The second report was entitled, "Egyptians in the Gulf, flying into darkness", issued on 2002, regarding human rights violations for Egyptians working in the Gulf states.
In such context comes EOHR's new report, "Egyptians Abroad: lost rights at home and abroad", in three parts:
First part: Legal context regulating the state of Egyptians abroad
About the legal instruments regulating the rights of Egyptians abroad, according to the Egyptian Constitution of 1971, law no. 111/1983 regarding immigrations and Egyptians abroad.
Second part: violations against Egyptians working abroad
Studies the situation and circumstances of Egyptians in Arab and non-Arab states, violations they face, most important of which is the sponsorship system that violates many International instruments regulating human rights, beside other violations like arbitrary retention, discrimination, torture, inhuman treatment, loss of financial belongings, violations to economic and social rights, murder, abduction, and illegal arrests.
Third part: typical cases for the violation of human rights of Egyptians abroad
Conclusion and recommendations
Part One: Legal context regulating the state of Egyptians abroad
Immigration phenomenon started in Egypt in the year 1957 on a limited level, then accelerated from 1967, carrying Egyptians to many states like USA, Canada and Australia, then a new wave of migration followed after the 1973 war, as immigrants increased noticeably during the 1970's and 1980's.
In the 1990's, and especially during the second gulf war, Egyptians started returning to the Gulf states, with rates less than its counterpart in the start of the 1980's. Egyptians abroad are about 3.5 millions, and in spite of this huge amount of Egyptians abroad, Egyptian Constitution of 1971 didn't include anything regarding the Egyptian rights abroad, or mechanisms for the political participation of Egyptians living in other states, stopping in Article 52 at, "Citizens shall have the right to permanent or temporary immigration". While other Constitutions in other states, state the right of citizens abroad to the diplomatic protection of their states.
Diplomatic protection right as per the international law of each state, is determined according to each country's legislations, however these constitutions determine it as a constitutional right for their citizens, as in the constitutions of Poland (1995), Russia (1993), Kazakhstan (1993), Yugoslavia (1992), and the Turkish constitution (Article 62), states that the state should take procedures empowering the citizens to practice their right to vote. Peruvian constitution (1993) states the right of citizens abroad to get their passports issued and to renew it.
With the increase in the numbers of Egyptians abroad, law no. 111/1983 was issued, regarding the regulation of immigration and protection of Egyptians abroad. The law affirmed on the right of immigration abroad, either permanently or for some period, without asking about the reasons of immigration, as a right of Egyptians, individuals and groups without discrimination whatsoever, notwithstanding the constitutional and legal rights.
The state should protect Egyptians abroad and establish their contact with Egypt, as established by article 1 and 2 of the law, that confirmed the role of the state in regulating seminars and workshops inside and abroad aiming at studying the problems of immigrants, finding solutions to it and letting them know about the state of affairs in their homeland. That can be established by delegating representatives for taking care of Egyptians' interests abroad, from diplomatic corp officials. Article 3-a stated the necessity of this, delegating the concerned Minister to cooperate with Ministries and concerned authorities for the distribution of work, most important of which is preparing bills and resolutions related to immigration, preparing agreements with foreign states to open new fields for Egyptian immigrants abroad, facilitating their residence in their new countries, safeguarding their rights and interests in such states (Article 3-d), beside participating in a periodical count for Egyptians abroad (Article 3-g). Article 5-b and c also regulates such affair, confirming the necessity of regulating specialized training courses for those who wish to immigrate, fulfilling the needs of Egyptians abroad, by producing cultural, media and national publications, by means of the Minister concerned with immigration, providing facilities for immigrants abroad, either before their travel or during staying abroad, or after their return permanently or on visits (Article 5-d).
Bylaw of law no. 111/1983 issued by Ministerial decision no. 14/1984 reaffirmed in its first article the right of immigration to citizens according to the constitution and law, via the concerned Ministry. The Ministry also shall protect all Egyptians abroad, whatever the reason for traveling abroad, taking procedures towards guaranteeing the rights of all Egyptians abroad as determined by law. Therefore, the main goal of this law is providing safeguards to citizens abroad, with the regulation of practicing their constitutional rights (Article 52) of the Egyptian Constitution, working on encouraging immigration while avoiding restrictions to this practice, providing balance between the citizens' rights and the interest of the society, providing safeguards to citizens abroad, protecting citizens who immigrated to foreign states (Article 2).
Second part: violations against Egyptians working abroad
1.Sponsorship System
Egyptian workers abroad are two types, those who work with contracts and their contracts supposedly include safeguards to their rights according to each contract, and the other are those who traveled abroad without contracts, working in farming and crafts, and those are the category receiving most of the problems.
Sponsorship system represents a serious violation to Egyptians in the Arab states, as Egyptians, due to this system, face illegal detentions, banning from traveling, giving the sponsor the right to confiscate the passports and cancel residence rights, making Egypt citizen face the possibility of losing his belongings, fearing illegal arrests and detention.
This is considered a serious violation to Article 13 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, stating:
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Also violating Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
And any restrictions on the right of movement inside the state is considered a violation to clauses 1 and 2 of Article 12 mentioned above. Also treatment other than the treatment of citizens, should be supported with reasons, as per the rules established in clause 3 of article 12 (comment no. 27 "Article 12 of the covenant" UN document no. 40/55/A, sixth annex, A), stating: "The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant".
According to clause 1 of article 12, Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence. The clause provides a base for the development of human right to movement, supporting many other rights mentioned in the covenant.
As each country must provide the rights mentioned in the covenant to all individuals on its territories or coming from outside, as per Article 2/1, "Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status". Also Article 3/A states, "To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity; to ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his rights thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy".
Generally speaking, rights presented in the covenant shall be applicable to all, regardless of anything.
Having that right shall not be subjected to any purposes or reasons of any person who wishes to travel or reside in any place. Any restrictions to this shall be consistent with paragraph 3, as the state has the right to accept the entry of individuals to its territories. However, in special cases foreigners can have the protection of the covenant even regarding the right to entry or residence in the state, when considering the discrimination, prohibition of inhuman treatment and respecting family live.
Article 8/1 of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, states, "Migrant workers and members of their families shall be free to leave any State, including their State of origin. This right shall not be subject to any restrictions except those that are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present part of the Convention".
However, when looking at the circumstances of Egyptians abroad, and what they face from violations to their rights and loss of their freedoms, especially in the Gulf states because of the sponsorship system, canceling any rights for immigrants, leaving him without guarantees, leading to the possibility of losing his life, damaging his work, losing his belongings. The sponsorship system damages the freedom of the citizen when he enters any of the gulf states. The sponsor becomes delegated by the local authorities to control the Egyptian citizen, while the later is only present as an individual at the state, as recognized by the sponsor. Sponsors can intervene in anything, even they have the right to end the work of immigrants and deport them, which is considered an inhuman kind of treatment.
Therefore, states when ratifying laws stating the restrictions mentioned in Article 12/3, must take guidance from the principle of not restricting the core of justice by means of restrictions imposed. As the restrictive procedures must walk hand in hand with the principle of balance, while adequacy must be provided for the protective functions of laws, and adequacy must have respect, not only in the law determining limits of restrictions, but also when applying such laws by administrative and judicial authorities.
Thus, restrictions mentioned in paragraphs 1,2,4 of Article 12 by discrimination with all its kinds, represents a serious violation to the Covenant, and also a violation to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families 1990.
Beside what Cairo Declaration for Human Rights in Islam (1990) declared, stated in its 13th article on, "Work is a right guaranteed by the State and Society for each person able to work. Everyone shall be free to choose the work that suits him best and which serves his interests and those of society. The employee shall have the right to safety and security as well as to all other social guarantees. He may neither be assigned work beyond his capacity nor be subjected to compulsion or exploited or harmed in any way. He shall be entitled - without any discrimination between males and females - to fair wages for his work without delay, as well as to the holidays, allowances and promotions which he deserves. For his part, he shall be required to be dedicated and meticulous in his work. Should workers and employers disagree on any matter, the State shall intervene to settle the dispute and have the grievances redressed, the rights confirmed and justice enforced without bias".
Also Protocol No. 7 to the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms stated in Article 1/1, paragraph 1, that, "An alien lawfully resident in the territory of a State shall not be expelled therefrom except in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall be allowed:
a. to submit reasons against his expulsion,
b. to have his case reviewed.
c. To be represented for these purposes before the competent authority or a person or persons designated by that authority.
Also the American Convention on Human Rights 1969 reaffirms in its 7th article the right to personal liberty, stating:
1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security.
2. No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto.
3. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment.
4. Anyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention and shall be promptly notified of the charge or charges against him.
5. Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial.
6. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful. In States Parties whose laws provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened with deprivation of his liberty is entitled to recourse to a competent court in order that it may decide on the lawfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. The interested party or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies.
While Article 8 of the same document stated the right to fair trial, as follows:
1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.
2. Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. During the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees:
- The right of the accused to be assisted without charge by a translator or interpreter, if he does not understand or does not speak the language of the tribunal or court;
- Prior notification in detail to the accused of the charges against him;
- Adequate time and means for the preparation of his defense;
- The right of the accused to defend himself personally or to be assisted by legal counsel of his own choosing, and to communicate freely and privately with his counsel;
- The inalienable right to be assisted by counsel provided by the state, paid or not as the domestic law provides, if the accused does not defend himself personally or engage his own counsel within the time period established by law;
- The right of the defense to examine witnesses present in the court and to obtain the appearance, as witnesses, of experts or other persons who may throw light on the facts;
- The right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself or to plead guilty; and
- The right to appeal the judgment to a higher court.
- A confession of guilt by the accused shall be valid only if it is made without coercion of any kind.
- An accused person acquitted by a nonappealable judgment shall not be subjected to a new trial for the same cause.
- Criminal proceedings shall be public, except insofar as may be necessary to protect the interests of justice.
Yellow transfers
According to the statistics of the Ministry of Work Force, the number of yellow transfers of Egyptians who worked in Iraq before the Iraqi invasion to Kuwait in 1990, is about 637 thousand transfer, with a total value of 406 million dollars, but these transfers were lost, and the question now is who's responsible for the lost rights?
The Central Bank of Egypt didn't take a stand in this issue, and is not supporting the victims, because it's not following a timely system in the yellow transfers system. When the UN sends the transfers it determines a period of 6 months for the payment of transfers, and when they are not paid to victims, they return to the UN again, which took its toll on the loss of the rights of citizens, instead of helping them collect their money in the time allowed for the payment of transfers
Part three: typical cases for human rights violations against Egyptians abroad
This part discusses a number of cases that filed complains at the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, from citizens working abroad.
1)Citizen Hassan Al Sayed Refa'y Al Ged
On March 27th 2005 EOHR received a complain by mail regarding that the mentioned above traveled to Iraq on 1988 to work as a car and equipment electrician at the Ministry of Agriculture, and remained in his post until he decided to return to Cairo on December 13th 1989, and before he returned, he transferred money by the yellow transfers system, on Al Rashed Bank in Baghdad, to the International African Arab Bank in Cairo. He was awestruck to find after his return that the bank didn't approve the transfers. On April 20th 2005 EOHR addressed the concerned authorities to help the citizen in making the transfers and giving him remedy for the material and moral damages because of retardation of the transfer.
A reply from the Iraqi embassy reached EOHR on August 6th 2005, with no. 7/2/1298, saying that they need detailed information about: Number of the transfer, amount of transfer, branch that initiated the transfer, so as the Rafedayen Bank will be able to take procedures needed. EOHR granted the embassy these information, but the citizens didn't receive his money to this date.
2)Citizen Mohamed Kotb Ahmed Abdulrasool
On October 3rd 2005 EOHR received a complain from the mentioned above, regarding his travel to Iraq on 1989 to work as a farmer. On September 22nd 1989 he transferred 1344 Dollars from Al Rafedayen Bank, Kazemeia branch, to the Arab African Bank in Cairo. On October 5th 2005 EOHR addressed the concerned authorities to make the transfer, but till now he didn't receive his money.
3)Citizen Fawzy Hassan Mohamed Ibrahim
On November 24th 2004 EOHR received a complain from the mentioned above, regarding his travel to Iraq on 1989, where he resided in Al Mawsel. He made 6 transfers reaching 80 Dollars per transfer. From Al Rafedayen Bank, to Bank of Alexandria, Assuit Branch. On the wake of the second gulf war, he had to return to Egypt. On December 4th 2004 EOHR addressed the concerned authorities to make the transfer, but the embassy said that the demands regarding the money should be referred to the UN in Geneva.
4)Citizen Khaled Farouk Abdulal Mohamed
On September 5th 2004 EOHR received a complain from the mentioned above, regarding his travel to Iraq on March 18th 1989, where he worked as an assistant at Al Henoudy repair garage, private sector, Al Ta'mem Governorate, Karkouk. He made a transfer of 750 Dollars while working there, from Al Rafedayen Bank, to Bank of Alexandria, Cairo Branch, and till now he can't get his transfer. EOHR addressed the concerned authorities to make the transfer, but the embassy said that the demands regarding the money should be referred to the UN in Geneva.
Lawsuits and cases
EOHR received many complains from Egyptians who filed cases at the courts with proper jurisdiction in the concerned countries, in order to collect their money, but they were faced by many obstacles, most important of which was not knowing the court with proper jurisdiction, contradiction of laws, financial difficulties in filing cases in other states, executing the courts decisions and the likes, even there were some executable decisions from courts that were not executed, because it was hard to determine a certain authority that enables Egyptian citizens to force the execution of the decisions. Examples of such cases were:
1)Citizen Abdurrahman Ahmed Ibrahim Bakar
He had a final court decision issued by KSA tenth commercial district circle, with decision no. 61/d/t.g, for the year 1415 Hejry, case no. 956/2/q for the year 1412 Hejry against Mohealdin Abdullah Helal (Saudi from Egyptian origins), but the citizen mentioned above wasn't able to force the execution of the decision, as he asked the concerned authorities (civil rights authority) to enforce the decision, but was faced with many obstacles that hindered the execution of the decision and the loss of his money.
The case goes back to February 28th 2005 when EOHR received the complain of the citizen, regarding his travel to KSA since 1974 for work, and on 1982 he made a partnership with Mr. Mohealdin Abdullah Helal, Egyptian national, with Saudi nationality, in a partnership with an amount reaching 318.718 Dollar, in the group of Helal for constructions in Jedah street.
However, the citizen found that his money was taken, and he had to file a case at the tenth commercial district court, which ruled that the convicted shall return an amount of 241533 Dollars, but the decision wasn't enforced. Afterwards, the citizen filed a complain at the royal Saudi Services with no. 34078 on September 29th 1416 Hejry, also at the Saudi Ministry of Interior, no. 94853 on October 30th 1416 Hejry. On April 20th 2005 EOHR filed reports for the concerned authorities to empower the citizen the enforcement of the court decision, according to the final decision that should be enforced, but EOHR didn't receive any response regarding the complain till now.
2)Citizen Zenn Al Abedeen Eid Fathallah Mansour
He had a court decision from Al Ein Court at UAE, in case no. 164/1998 Ein district, which ruled for the interest of the citizen, and demanded that the convicted, Mr. Ahmed Rashed Al Kabe, should pay 15 thousand Derham, but he wasn't able to get back his money and enforce the decision. The case goes back to March 19th 2005 when EOHR received a complain from the citizen, about his travel to UAE since 1995, where he worked as a constructions worker and finally became a supervisor at Al Banafsej General Constructions Company, according to a contract between the company and the citizen. And when he asked the employer Ahmed Rashed Hamad Al Kabe to return his money to him for the period he worked at the company, he refused. Then he filed a case that had a final verdict in case no. 164/1998 on June 23rd 1998, which ruled that Ahmed Rashed Al Kabe should pay 15 thousand Derham for Mansour. However, the decision wasn't enforced in spite of complaining at various concerned authorities.
On March 23rd 2005 EOHR filed complains for the concerned authorities to return the money of the citizen, 15 thousand Derham, but EOHR didn't receive any response yet regarding the complain.
3)Citizen Fatima Mohamed Selem Ahmed
The decision of Port Said Family Court (for Foreigners) in case no. 129/2004 on March 29th 2005, ruled that the child Salama Ahmed Abdullah should be given to the citizen, whom is married to a UAE citizen. However, in spite of having the final decision of the court she wasn't able to enforce it due to obstacles in procedures and the problem of determining the authority with proper jurisdiction to enforce the decision. The case started April 28th 2005 when EOHR received a complain from the citizen, saying that she got married to Mr. Ahmed Abdullah Ahmed Ghaleb Al Mohery (UAE citizen), residing in the UAE at Ras Al Khayma, Ramas region, according to a marriage contract registered at the Cairo Personal Documentation Office with no. 1394/b/1995, no. 2066 Civil affairs, and she had with her husband Salama who was born on September 13th 1998 at Sakr Hospital in Ras Al Khayma, UAE, and while she was in a visit to Cairo to her folks, the UAE husband returned to Ras Al Khayma and abducted the child without the knowledge of her mother. He traveled to the UAE since February 2004, and up till now Fatima didn't see her daughter or was able to take her, so she asked the Egyptian judiciary to empower her to see her child.
4)Heirs of citizen Youssif Youssif Khedr
Misdemeanor court of Bozaygod in Algeria issued a decision for them on January 30th 1983, regarding a financial remedy for the heirs for the death of Youssif Youssif in a car accident, regarding police report on February 26th 1982, with number 225, but till now they were not able to enforce the decision . The case started in 2006 when EOHR received a complain from the heirs mentioned, that on February 26th 1982 Youssif Youssif died in a car accident in Algeria, so they filed a case against the National Insurance company in Algeria, Zigod Youssif Court in Algeria, that decided a financial remedy from the company, according to decision issued on January 30th 1983, "The convicted shall be imprisoned for two months and shall pay a remedy of 2 thousand Dinar, with the civil responsibility of Kojevar Italian Company to remedy the heirs of Youssif Youssif as follows: the mother, Fatima Al Redeny, 90000 Algerian Dinar, brother Saad Youssif 5000 Dinar, brother Abdulhady Youssif 5000 Dinar, the heirs of Motwaly Ali, wife Akela Asran 50000 Dinar, Mother Nagiba Abdulsalam 30000 Dinar, and for each of the sons, Lamia, Mohamed and Rawa 30000 Algerian Dinar, therefore the Democratic Republic of Algeria shall assign law enforcers to execute this decision, and agents of the workers and governmental agents shall exert efforts to such end. All presidents of the general authority shall provide their help whenever asked for by the law". However, the decision wasn't enforced until this date. On July 30th 2006 EOHR addressed the concerned authorities trying to enforce the mentioned above decision, and empower the heirs of the victim to collect their remedies according to the final decision of the court, however EOHR didn't receive any response till now.
5)Citizen Mohamed Hanafy Mustafa Hasanen
Giza Court of First Instance, district 12 civil affairs, Cairo court, on May 5th 2000, regarding civil case no. 4624/1999 against Mr Zed Yassin Taha (Saudi nationality), owner of Zed Yassin Commercial Firm (Trade and Constructions in Al Kossiem), in which Mr Zed was ruled as to pay 260 thousand Saudi Riyal with legal interests, starting from the date of asking for the money until the date of receiving the money.
However, the citizen wasn't able to enforce the decision according to the convention between Egypt and Saudi Arabia (Reyad Arab Convention for Judicial Cooperation on 1403 Hejry). The cases started on May 17th 2005 when EOHR received the complain, that the citizen traveled on 1983 to KSA, where he became a contractor for Zed Yassin Commercial Firm (Trade and Constructions) at Al Kossiem.
During the year 1420 Hejry, and while in Egypt on vacation, his sponsor, Zayed Yassin Taha, came to Egypt and took his passport saying that he need it for the travel procedures of the citizen. But he found that the sponsor flee after taking his passport and documents regarding working for him, which damaged the citizen because he didn't collect his money, 260000 Saudi Riyal.
He filed a police report with no 911/1999 Dokki Police station, and filed a case against his sponsor, with no. 4624/1999 Giza Court of First Instance (12) civil district. However, in spite of the decision of the court on May 25th 2000, the decision wasn't enforced to this date. On May 19th 2006 EOHR addressed the concerned authorities to collect the money of the citizen according to the mentioned above decision.
Illegal arrests, inhuman treatment and detention, unfair trials, banning from traveling, and deportation
From the events that took place, many Egyptians are evidently in Arab and foreign prisons, and they are kept inside the prisons detained with inhuman treatment. The main reason is that Egyptian embassies ignore their presence and do not intervene rapidly and effectively to protect them from prison and the loss of their rights, beside that many of them face murder or stealing.
In cases of death that might happen to an immigrant during being abroad after a long age searching for daily bread and to enhance his income, the transfer of the body to Egypt needs a lot of paperwork and costs way over what Egyptian families can afford, so they bury their sons abroad.
On the other hand, many Egyptians, especially travelers to the United States, are subjected to harassments at airports and schools, and anyone of them suspected for a Muslim or Arab can face murder or murder threats, especially after the 9/11 events, and the Egyptian embassies do not move a muscle any way possible, or take any procedures to guarantee the protection of Egyptian citizens abroad from the violation of their rights, or inhuman treatment either by the American government or the American people, as the rule now became accusing Egyptians until proven innocent, not terrorists or against the western civilization.
|
|
|
|
