Iranian teachers, Sahand and Leila, are university educated and economically secure. They speak English – not well, but enough to get by. Theirs is not the stereotypical refugee story. Nevertheless, they have been refugees since 2012.

When Mani was born, his parents were both legally married to other people. Mani is evidence of their adultery, a sin which is also a capital crime in Iran. Afraid for their lives, they flee to seek asylum in Turkey, and a more permanent home someplace in the West, beyond the reach of Iranian intelligence.

Because Danish filmmaker, Eva Mulvad, documented their complicated and frustrating journey for six years, Love Child provides a case study that students can examine. In this lesson, students will consider American immigration practices and policies and take on the role of the immigration judge, studying relevant ethics and laws, and then providing a written “verdict” on whether Leila, Sahand, and Mani should be permitted to resettle in the U.S.

A Note from Curriculum Creator, Dr. Faith Rogow

Adolescents commonly experience feelings conjured by stories and these feelings can be difficult to understand; for some, that can lead to feelings of disconnection, isolation, and even alienation. Finding the universal themes in their own life stories can help them understand that they are, indeed, unique, but also connected. At a time when many people are pulling away from those who are different (racially, religiously, ethnically), finding the themes that are common to humanity can provide common ground, helping people better understand those they define as “other.” As an added benefit, recognizing the universal themes in their own stories can help students identify (and perhaps even connect with) themes in the literature they are assigned to read. Pay close attention to the learners in your care as you engage in this lesson - check-in with them, create community rules to ensure that no harm is fostered in your classroom.

Subject Areas

• Global Studies
• Civics
• Research Skills
• Ethics
• Law

Grade Levels: [9-10]

Objectives:

In this lesson, students will:

• Learn the definitions of: refugee, asylum, statelessness, well-founded fear
• Use research skills to find current U.S. policy on granting asylum
• Hear and read “testimony” from a family applying for asylum
• Apply what they learn about U.S. policy to the situation of the family in Love Child, taking into account ethical responsibilities, as well as the law
• Issue a written “verdict” based

Materials:

• Film Clips from Love Child and a way to screen them; also ongoing access to the clips for students to review as needed
• “Testimony” Handout – This is a document compiled from scenes in Love Child that cannot be screened as part of this lesson. It fills in important parts of the story. If you are in a position to screen the entire film with students, you do not need this handout.
• Internet access for research purposes

Time Needed:

One 45-minute class period, preceded and followed by homework. Optional follow-up class for students to share and discuss their verdicts.

Clip 1: Leaving Iran (:25 – 3:50, length 3:25)

The clip begins with Sahand packing (grabbing his phone). It ends when Leila says, “We have to do this for Mani.”
Leila, Sahand, and Mani flee Iran. They fear they’ll be caught and they fear for the safety of family they have left behind, who may be targeted because of the couple’s actions.

Discussion Questions for Clip:

What can you observe about what feelings the family is experiencing? What specifically shows, or communicates, what they are feeling?

Clip 2: Leila’s Story (6:10 – 9:45, length: 3:35 min.)

The clip begins as Leila explains: “I was born...” It ends when Leila explains that Sahand would be executed.
Leila meets with a therapist in Turkey and shares her story. We find out that Leila had a happy childhood, earned a university degree, and worked as a teacher. We also discover that Leila was married to a violently abusive drug addict, applied for and was denied a divorce, had an affair with Sahand, and bore his child.

Note: Though there is nothing graphic, Leila does note that her marriage was never consummated, using phrases like “I remained a girl.”

Discussion Questions for Clip:

Why was Leila denied a divorce? What do you think of the criteria the judge used to issue that denial?

Were you surprised that, as a refugee, Leila was able to see a therapist, or that she permitted the filmmaker to record the session? Why might psychological supports be as important as meeting the physical needs of refugees?

Is the affair evidence of a flawed moral character? Should it be used to deny Leila and Sahand asylum?

Clip 3: Sahand’s Story (19:50 – 21:50, length: 2 min.)

The clip begins in the middle of Sahand’s story when he says he remembers a man being hanged. It ends when he says he felt guilty for being an informer.
With the therapist, Sahand recalls childhood memories of people publicly whipped and stoned for having an extramarital affair. He also shares that when he was a teenager, he participated in a protest and was arrested. Iranian secret police used implied threats of torture, imprisonment, or death to coerce him to become an informant.

Discussion Questions for Clip:

What’s the link between being well-read and feeling uncomfortable being an informant? How has Sahand’s education given him power to understand his situation differently?

What role should Sahand’s work as an informant for Iranian intelligence play in consideration of his application for asylum?

Clip 4: Bad News (53:05 – 55:20, length: 2:15 min.)

The clip begins with Sahand opening the status papers he has received. It ends on a shot of Leila looking down.
Sahand reads aloud the decision in his case. His application to UNHCR for refugee status has been rejected. This is especially devastating because Leila and Mani have been approved. They share the news with Mani, who is upset that they may leave without his father. Sahand tries to comfort his son, saying that, “People who want a better life have to go through hard times and this is our hard time.”

Discussion Questions for Clip:

What did you think of the criteria In order to be eligible for international refugee protection: “the persecution you fear must be for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”?

Clip 5: Meeting with the Lawyer (58:55 – 1:00:35, length: 1:40 min.)

The clip begins with Sahand’s lawyer saying, “They write that you aren’t clear enough.” It ends with the lawyer asking if Sahand can get his divorce certificate on the same day he files for correction. Sahand seeks help from a lawyer to appeal the UNHCR’s denial of his status. It illustrates some of the sometimes absurd bureaucratic hoops that refugees must jump through, like getting proof from Iranian intelligence that Sahand worked with them as a secret informant. Or that Leila and Sahand could get married immediately if his divorce certification didn’t have a typo, and getting it corrected requires a visit to the Iranian consulate. The consulate is Iranian territory and Sahand fears that if he sets foot inside, they could arrest him.

Discussion Questions for Clip:

Are the requirements for official documents fair and reasonable?

Why would being legally married make it more likely that Sahand would get refugee status than simply being able to prove, with DNA, that Mani is his son?

Clip 6: Getting Married (1:01:55 – 1:07:50, length: 6:05 min.)

The clip begins with Leila on the phone saying, “Nothing happened.” It ends with her saying, “Something forbidden we made legal.”
After a tense but successful trip to the Iranian consulate to obtain valid divorce certificates, Sahand and Leila rush to get married in time to send proof of marriage to the UNHCR before it closes Sahand’s case and permanently denies him refugee status. Their attempt is almost thwarted because they don’t have the correct pictures or health documents, but the kindness of a clerk saves them.

Discussion Questions for Clip:

In order to get married in time, the couple is at the mercy of the clerk and her willingness to do them a favor. What do you think about one person having that much power over the lives of others? What circumstances led to her having that much power?

Why do you think getting married was so important to Leila and Sahand? What did it represent to them?

Step 1: Research

Explain to students that they are going to step into the role of being immigration court judges. They will be asked to consider a case of a family fleeing Iran. The family is requesting asylum and permanent resident status.

Before they can hear the case, they must know the law. So their first assignment is to become familiar with current U.S. laws governing refugees. (Advanced students might also be asked to compare U.S. law with international legal standards).

For this stage, you can decide whether they must summarize their work in writing or simply know it well enough to function as a judge. In the final step of this lesson, they will be asked to provide a written verdict, which will need to cite the basis for their decision, so, at a minimum, they will need to take notes.

Depending on which research skills you want students to practice, you can leave the task open-ended, or you can require that they start with the websites in the Resources section.

Step 2: Hearing the Case

a) Do a quick check in to ensure that students understood the basics from their research. This would include the difference between an immigrant and a refugee, what constitutes “well-founded fear,” and any specifics of current policy that are relevant (e.g., borders completely closed to combat a pandemic, or refugees declined from all nations deemed by the current administration to be a security threat).

b) Remind students of their main assignment: They are immigration judges and will need to submit a written verdict about whether to allow or deny Sahand, Leila, and Mani entrance into the U.S. That verdict will need to cite specific evidence and reasoning for their decision. They will be permitted to cite ethics, laws, and specific elements of the family’s story. For that reason, they may want to take notes as they view the “evidence.”

c) Convene the “hearing” and play all of the video clips. You may want to pause a couple of times for students to share reactions, but reserve most of the discussion time.

d) After the final clip, invite students to share reactions to what they’ve seen so far. Are there details that make the case particularly difficult or hard to decide? As time allows, guide students to explore any differences between legal and ethical standards.

e) Distribute the “Testimony” handout. If any time remains, allow students to begin working on their verdict.

Step 3: The Verdict

On the day that students are required to turn in their written work, take a quick poll to see if there was consensus. Invite students to share their reasoning and any new insights that have re-shaped the way they think about U.S. immigration policy.

End by making connections to your curriculum. For example, if you are teaching a government/civics class, what did students learn about the law? Do current laws match their personal ethical standards? If not, what actions could they take? In a global studies course you might introduce current UN statistics on current estimates for the number of refugees globally, their origin, and the primary causes of migration.

Use students’ written verdict to assess their comprehension of the lesson, and any other skills you need to evaluate (e.g., writing, linking argument to evidence, research skills).

Read an account from a refugee from another time and place (e.g., WWII Germany, 19th century Ireland, 1970s Chile, 1950s Cuba, modern-day Syria or Myanmar). Compare and contrast with the story in Love Child.

Create a timeline of changes in immigration policy in the U.S. When and why was the U.S. welcoming of immigrants or refugees? Under what circumstances has it closed its border?

Interview refugees who have settled in your community, and if they are willing, help them share their story.

Research Iranian political history and make contemporary connections.

Discuss the rise of nation-states and what people lose when they become stateless (i.e., what are the benefits of citizenship)? Explore how the disadvantages of statelessness apply to a population such as young people who qualify for DACA.

Resource List

Check POV’s Discussion Guide for Love Child for additional questions and background information or POV’s Delve Deeper Reading List to find resources for further engagement.

Love Child Press Kit – includes director’s notes and an interview with the director

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services – the U.S. government agency that deals with asylum claims. Resources include application forms, definitions, and eligibility rules.

U.S. Immigration and Nationalization Act – Provides legal definitions for status terms, such as “refugee”

UNHCR – The United Nations Refugee Agency assists refugees across the globe. The website includes an array of resources, including statistics, definitions, reports of refugee populations and policies searchable by country, and more. For information specific to the U.S., see https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/asylum-resources.html

Standards

W.9-10.1 Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient evidence.

W.9-10.2 Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas, concepts, and information clearly and accurately through the effective selection, organization, and analysis of content.

W.9-10.4 Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization and style are appropriate to task, purpose and audience.

W.9-10.7 Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects to answer a question (including a self-generated question) or solve a problem; narrow or broaden the inquiry when appropriate; synthesize multiple sources on the subject, demonstrating understanding of the subject under investigation.

W.9-10.8 Gather relevant information from multiple authoritative print and digital sources, using advanced searches effectively; assess the usefulness of each source in answering the research question; integrate information into the text selectively to maintain the flow of ideas, avoiding plagiarism and following a standard format for citation.

SL.9-10.1.A Come to discussions prepared, having read and researched material under study; explicitly draw on that preparation by referring to evidence from texts and other research on the topic or issue to stimulate a thoughtful, well-reasoned exchange of ideas.

SL.9-10.2 Integrate multiple sources of information presented in diverse media or formats (e.g., visually, quantitatively, orally) evaluating the credibility and accuracy of each source.

SL.9-10.3 Evaluate a speaker's point of view, reasoning, and use of evidence and rhetoric, identifying any fallacious reasoning or exaggerated or distorted evidence.

SL.9-10.6 Adapt speech to a variety of contexts and tasks, demonstrating command of formal English when indicated or appropriate.

RI.9-10.1 Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.

RI.9-10.2 Determine a central idea of a text and analyze its development over the course of the text, including how it emerges and is shaped and refined by specific details; provide an objective summary of the text.

RA.R.1 Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text.

RA.R.4 Interpret words and phrases as they are used in a text, including determining technical, connotative, and figurative meanings, and analyze how specific word choices shape meaning or tone.

RA.R.7 Integrate and evaluate content presented in diverse media and formats, including visually and quantitatively, as well as in words.

RA.R.10 Read and comprehend complex literary and informational texts independently and proficiently.

This resource was created, in part, with the generous support of the Open Society Foundation.