comfortably expel them. Where exactly, nobody knows. This is not the building’s question. The building’s question is how best to sever any residual linguistic ties, any intimacies that might have formed, so that the tribunal might perform its task, leaving the language unaffected by the process of expulsion.
People spirited away. Barely rendered present in the first place. In the event that an appellant receives relief they are paid in vouchers not cash. So that the currency is like the language, so that the function might be performed, so that as it is determined who leaves the language the language determining goes untouched.
This is the tribunal’s job. It is the focal point of all the language, the setting where official hostility achieves full expression in all its multiple forms, where the Presenting Officer asks a series of questions that beggar belief in their disregard for the appellant’s actual circumstance, where mistranslation goes wilfully uncorrected, where fundamental documents are routinely withheld. Where the line is drawn. Where the hostile environment is made administratively manifest. Where the language forms by a series of procedures holding intimacy at bay. Where the procedures go unrecorded. Where all the intimacies are lost. Where that tone we live with that claims to represent us is perfected by compulsive use.
Because it doth remove
Those things which
The language formed in the act of separation not acknowledging the absence of those it compels to leave, established by the breach, the act of shipping people out
That ourselves know
Witness the language
13 | Who Leaves the Language