Month: September 2024 (Page 3 of 5)

Reading Response Class 3 – Allison Jiang

The central theme of this week’s readings appeared to me as how Americans’ perception of immigration and immigrants are shifting. When I use the term “American,” this encompasses government officials down to the average city resident. Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s busing of migrants to democratic-run cities has been described as a “political stunt” by officials in Washington.

From a different perspective, Abbott’s political move also served as a catalyst to bringing the border from the policymaker’s concern to that of the average city resident. Alongside the rampant and prevalent discussion of immigration in the 2024 presidential election, cities are having to grapple with handling this influx in migrants as well as the impact of this sudden increase on public opinion and political discourse.

There has been a dramatic increase in migrants, with more than 205,0000 migrants arriving in New York City since spring 2022. These stories spotlight how uniquely recent years’ conversations around immigration have been a popular media-powered discussion.

On one side we see the conversation that is an empathetic display towards those seeking refuge, most prevalent in the Uniting for Ukraine clip. Jana, the young daughter of a Ukrainian immigrant, paints a bright-eyed image of the United States and the American Dream. Her mother supports this positive rhetoric on the United States’ successful border policy. It was surprising to hear about how non-controversial Uniting for Ukraine was. Evident even in its name, this geopolitically driven policy is widely perceived as more compatible due to its bipartisan stance against an anti-American regime. Additionally, race plays a factor: the entry of white Ukrainian refugees is uncapped, meanwhile, Biden has capped Cuban, Haitian, and Venezuelan migrants and these policies have been challenged more than Uniting for Ukraine.

Contrarily, there is a far-right anti-immigrant sentiment brewing. This has been powered by Abbott’s busing and the Take Our Border Back convoy, making this rhetoric increasingly heightened, violent, and extreme. Take the YouTube livestreamers: these new online stars proclaim themselves “illegal hunters” staking out migrants along the Southern border, monetizing a sensationalist tendency and further feeding a far-right fanbase.

Additionally, with the migrant influx and dwindling resources and space for shelter, the growing number of homeless migrants on the streets has amplified the issue to a pressing public and political front; it’s the dramatic convergence of U.S. megacities’ issues of street homelessness and overwhelming migration. The busing has strained cities like New York who have been dealing with a crisis, as well as Denver who are not accustomed to such a mass intake of migrants.

The policy response has been highly defensive, with Biden announcing new immigration restrictions capping grating asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, and Mayor Adams distributing fliers at the border that warn migrants that they are not guaranteed shelter/services once in the city. I thought the New York Mayor’s chief of staff summarized this situation well: “If one of [Abbott’s] goals was drawing attention to what happens at the border in a way that many interior cities don’t feel on a regular basis, then yes, that was successful.”

The NYT piece on the interconnected issues of migration and homelessness lays out an intriguing observation: many migrants are choosing to sleep on the streets voluntarily because they were assigned to housing locations that were too far from the jobs they have found. I see this phenomenon as a result of two key policy failures: the first is the city’s inability to address its long-standing homelessness problem through greater investments in affordable housing and other social services, and the second is the effective integration of migrants into host communities in a way that is mutually beneficial for the migrants and the host. It would be both in the city’s favor and the migrants’ favor if they are assigned to housing locations which are within a reasonable distance from job opportunities, as this would increase migrants’ access to these opportunities and also increase the benefit to the city from filling in roles which are vital to the city’s economic activities. This article also shows that there is sometimes a gap between public opinion or perception of an issue and its reality, such as New Yorkers’ concerns over declining quality of life which they perceive to be a result of the influx of migrants.

Another challenge mentioned in both the NYT piece and City and State piece is the time limit on migrants’ ability to stay in shelter locations provided by the city: 60 days for families and 30 days for individual adults. This either forces migrants into homelessness following this window or leaves it completely  up to them to figure out how to find housing on their own. However, the migrants are straining the city’s shelter system, so it is important to also understand the nonprofit landscape and how independent organizations may be filling in a gap for needs that the city is not able to provide adequately. It is also interesting to see the pushback from other places such as Canada which Mayor Adams tried to convince to accommodate some of the migrants that are being bused to New York without any coordination from governors of states such as Texas.

The CBS video highlights the racial undertones and interconnectedness of racism and xenophobia in controversies surrounding the influx of migrants. There was significantly less public pushback and dissent against allowing Ukrainian refugees into the U.S., and there were also relatively easier pathways for them to legally work in the U.S. (as opposed to the asylum process described in the NYT article which sometimes takes years). The video mentioned that over 230,000 refugees were allowed into the U.S. in a matter of weeks, which is in stark contrast with the timeframe it took some of the migrants from Latin America and the Caribbean. I find it interesting that the reporters mentioned geopolitics as a reason for lower levels of controversy; refugees from Ukraine are seen as victims of an unjust war perpetrated by an anti-American regime, but this same sympathy is not granted to migrants fleeing from violence and conflict settings in Latin America. However, there is still the challenge of having to renew their status and not having a direct pathway to citizenship.

My underlying thread when reading the articles of this week was a sense of policy disorientation. The stark differences in processes for Ukrainian refugees and latin americans (particularly Venezuelans) showed the fluidity of our system. In the series Immigration Nation, there’s a moment where it’s shown that refugees who could be released from southern detention centers are kept for political reasons, a moment where the ambiguities in the legal processes are instrumentalized. Watching the video about the comparative ease with which Ukrainians came in, I was shocked. But then reading the article by Sahalie Donaldson and seeing the NYT graphic showing the influx of refugees to New York, I saw how unprepared major American cities really are for that influx. (We) were able to handle Ukrainian immigrants, what is it about their Latin American counterparts that destabilizes the refugee system? Is it that they tend to land with better-established family members? Or that their presence incites less political backlash? 

Reading the chronicle of Mayor Adams’ failures and experiments, it’s clear the city is struggling with how to adapt. Adams was faced with pressure on all sides; while human rights groups decry the conditions refugees find themselves in, native New Yorkers (like Barry Bliss) and conservative politicians push back on the camps and housing developments. A great part of that struggle is definitely due to Abbott’s busing programs, but regardless it seems like New York is unequipped to handle migrant influxes. I wonder what policies have worked as responses to mass migration in the past? I see a lot of valid complaints, but I have no idea what the answer to refugee influxes is. The issue is often presented in monetary terms – one NYT article says that Abbott has spent more than 230 million to bus 120,000 migrants to New York. Wouldn’t that money be better spent if we thought of it tangibly as (nearly) 2k dollars for each immigrant? First off, where’s that money going? And especially as New York spends many times more than that, what would be the best use for that money? The most tangibly beneficial? 

A “methods” question, because I’m still trying to read this with an eye for how to improve: how are visual elements best utilized in these articles? The interview on CBS is a great example of face-to-face time forcing empathy, and the NYT interactive visual model that shows migrant busing does a fantastic job of making the issue feel more understandable. But in general, how are photos (especially of people) used (because they are “used”) without dehumanizing their subjects? The Ferré-Sadurni and Bensimon article has great photos, and I think part of my attraction to them is from the fact that they’re not always straightforward – the second to last photo of the drying clothes is deeply powerful, despite the lack of a human subject. In looking for images that help, I hope to find telling details.

The readings this week brought up a few things for me. The first: I really had no concept of the scale at which migrants were coming into the United States. I grew up in Baltimore, which, in my understanding, has generally been a place migrants come to as a second or third stop after arriving in the U.S., but not as a port of entry. Far from the Southern border, and with the much bigger cities of D.C., Philadelphia, and New York just a few hours away each, the stories of mass-migration always felt pretty abstract and far away. I’d read and seen news before, of course, documenting the sheer numbers of people fighting to find a place to exist, but reading about the overflowing shelters and emerging camps of homeless people really put some visuals to it for me.
Governor Abbot’s bussing plan is unlike any policy I’ve ever heard of; it just sounds sort of absurd. “Bus by Bus, Texas’ Governor Changed Migration Across the U.S.” shows how inhumanely it was done, not coordinating with groups that receive immigrants, sending them at odd hours to different places, and refusing to work with the receiving cities. It was clearly not a plan created with the interest of the migrants in mind, and there were parts that are downright petty (two buses showing up at Kamala Harris’ house in the middle of the night?!).
But the plan has also done what it set out to do. I know how abstract migration through the Southern border felt growing up on the East Coast. Abbott is right that Democrats (myself included) have ranted on about his harsh border policies with no understanding of the reality of the situation, and it was important that the rest of the country see the scale and stakes of what is happening. It was wild to read about New York City, go back on its policy requiring the provision of a bed to people that need it. It is obvious that more resources are needed to help transition migrants into the U.S; New York’s ICE appointments are booked through 10 years out (City and State NY).
And yet, the readings also showed that we know how to do this. The United for Ukraine policy created a seamless entry for Ukrainian refugees into the country. They were sponsored by families, spreading out all over the country, and immediately allowed to work. There was no narrative of the “burden” the migrants were putting on the country, nor of them “stealing” jobs.
This point of work seems to be the essential one. In NYC, the mayor was pleading with the federal government to extend TPS to the migrants coming in so that they could work, which people desperately wanted to do. As soon as the government granted Venezuelans TPS, 60,000 began working, allowing them to become self-sufficient (City and State NY). Why would the government refuse to allow asylum seekers to work, ensuring that they remain unable to provide for themselves? The articles highlighted how differently immigrants coming from different places are greeted.

I found many of the readings particularly interesting. I interned in Washington, D.C., this Summer and witnessed issues regarding the Homeless population throughout the city, as well as issues regarding immigration policy (specifically protests regarding the Venezuelan election). I think many of these articles were relevant to what I was hearing and seeing during my internship experience in the city this Summer. 

The first article A Growing Number of Homeless Migrants Are Sleeping on N.Y.C. stressed the significance of issues intertwining and the importance of cultivating supportive cities for migrants. The article emphasizes that both the migrant issue and homelessness issue are prompting an even bigger problem that has pushed both of these issues toward the forefront of the thoughts of each city experiencing homelessness and migrant issues. One particular concern is how we can take care of these issues while ensuring that things are being taken care of in a humane and proper way that does not just disregard the issue nor eradicate people to solve the problem. 

In The article Immigration Wave Delivers Economic Windfall. But there’s a Catch Whereas the previous New York Times article stresses the impact of homelessness, a lack of resources, and an increase in migrants, the second New York Times article emphasizes some of the more positive aspects of immigrants coming in and how they can positively contribute to the economy. One specific quote that stood out to me during the article was, “Many economists say immigration is a net economic positive in the long run” and essentially establishes the idea that more immigrants = more labor = more money and more benefit to the economy. I found this article interesting because it stresses the more positive aspect of immigration and how it can actually positively benefit workers who are already established in their roles and the economy in the U.S. With immigration typically being a very black-and-white debated object, having a middle ground that establishes some sense of both good and evil makes it attractive to digest, interpret, and process for a better understanding of where to stand on the issue and how the problem should be mitigated. 

In the article, YouTube Livestreamers Made Money ‘Hunting’ for Migrants Along the U.S. Border and hearing about this issue and how people are going about making a profit off of watching others be harassed and threatened, I felt particularly concerned and uneasy about how this type of orchestrated money-making scheme is a human rights issue and a violation of the privacy of others. “Far-right extremists have spent the past week harassing and threatening migrants on the United States border with Mexico while making money by live streaming it on YouTube and Rumble.” Seeing others so clearly prioritize their funds and wealth over the immigration issue makes me particularly concerned with how our policy leaders and presidents will solve the problem. If so many people take it seriously, how can we expect it to be unresolved or successful in the long run? 

I also found the last two sources that were a part of our assigned reading, “Following the asylum-seeker odyssey: a timeline” and Bus by Bus, Texas Governor Changed Migration Across the U.S.” did an excellent job at conveying facts, statistics, and numbers that have not necessarily been broadcasted on significant levels. In the latter article, I found it interesting just how extreme this issue is and just how much it is exponentially accelerating. Emphasizing throughout its entirety, it explains just how much the list of cities keeps on expanding and just how many people at a time are traveling on these buses being offered. Even though they are constant and consistent, there are still continuous amounts of people and immigrants trying to get to the US safely and attempting to find some sort of safety. In the article it emphasizes the importance of these bus trips for migrants stating explicitly, “so many of these trips are life changing for those who have them offered.” With only select people having them offered, it stresses the significance of luck in these processes and just how promising it is for those who have the opportunity to travel to the US via one of these bus services.

Growing up in Texas, I’ve met people who have been bused to other cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, and I’ve witnessed many face discrimination based on their nationality. Seeing these realities up close has shaped how I view the stories surrounding immigration.

In New York, many homeless migrants sleep outside rather than in shelters because they feel safer in the open. One of them said, “Here we all take care of each other.” This distrust in government represents a fear that many immigrants share, coming from countries where the government has failed them before. It reminds me of stories I’ve heard from people in Texas who share similar fears, avoiding shelters or government assistance out of concern for their safety or risk of deportation. This mirrors the broader sentiment of vulnerability many migrants feel even after arriving in the U.S.

Busing migrants to cities like Los Angeles, Denver, and Chicago has put strain on these cities, and more recently, Boston, Detroit, and Albuquerque have been affected. New York City has spent more than $5.1 billion to manage the surge of immigrants, most from Venezuela, with reports even saying the city has paid some to leave. In Texas, I’ve met people who were directly impacted by this strategy, some of whom had no idea where they were headed when they boarded the buses. Their American Dream, much like the one portrayed in Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, becomes a story of hardship and exploitation rather than opportunity.

In New York, the overwhelming number of migrants has created confusion about how many buses are coming and when. The city requested $315 billion but only received $31 billion, showing how unprepared cities are for this surge. I’ve seen the disorganization firsthand in Texas, where there are often gaps in how migrants are handled, with no clear guidance on where they will go or how they will be supported once they arrive.

One story that disturbed me to my core involved the exploitation of migrants on platforms like YouTube, where people harass migrants for entertainment. In Texas, the desperation is real—crossing the border through a desert where dehydration and death are constant threats. So to see people monetizing this suffering, while harassing migrants, is horrifying. In one story, a person stabbed and shot a barrel of water meant to save lives along the border. This hits especially close to home because organizations like Humane Borders work tirelessly to maintain water along the border to prevent migrant deaths. Seeing that work sabotaged by individuals for personal gain is infuriating.

The contrast between how different migrant groups are treated is stark. Ukrainian migrants have been welcomed more easily, reflecting underlying racial and geopolitical biases. The U.S. government responded quickly to the Ukrainian crisis with programs like United by Ukraine, but Central and South American migrants continue to face delays and harsher restrictions. In Texas, I’ve seen how people from Mexico and Central America are treated with suspicion and judged more harshly than migrants from other parts of the world.

I find Governor Abbott’s bus policy fascinating. It seems that his aim is to impose the realities of irregular migration on Democratic cities that would have otherwise been insulated by geography from feeling its effects. It was interesting to note in the Bus by Bus NYT piece that Abbott had chosen the destination cities because they were run by Democrats who support Biden’s border policies. We talk about NIMBYism in the context of land development, but it seems to me that there is a fair amount of migration NIMBYism in the US too. On one level, Abbott has successfully highlighted the hypocrisy of those who supported looser border policies for Texas when they did not feel the effects. Now, there is broader support in these democratic cities for curbing migration. I noted in Donaldson’s timeline of the migration crisis in NYC that Eric Adams, at one point, said that the migrant issue would “destroy New York City”. So, Abbott has been very successful in his goal and on some level, I think there is a moral case that the burden of migration should be shared across the country. I thought the detail of the Cuban migrant who said that the Texan Governor was “very generous” for the bus ticket was wonderful. However, we must also acknowledge that Abbott seems to have malicious intent. It was striking that Texan officials do not provide any warning or notice when the buses are going to arrive. Moreover, they seem to be actively trying to inconvenience the city authorities. For example, when Mayor Adams instituted his order that buses had to provide some notice, the buses started dropping people at train stations in NJ. 

I was also curious about the shelter system in NY. Not only has the migrant crisis forced the city to alter its obligations to provide shelter to all, but the city is also tearing down migrant encampments that are springing up around the place. This reminds me very much of what is happening in northern France. There seems to be an implicit desire in this policy that the migrants will simply vanish. Where are the migrants supposed to go then? In reality, I think such policies are just making life more miserable for them. I read the comments on the NYT article about homeless migrants, and I was struck by the lack of sympathy for the migrants and the general view of them as a nuisance. I imagine that some people in NYC who condemn Abbott’s treatment of the migrants at the border are not thrilled about the migrants in NYC. 

I found the report on the “illegal hunters” streaming their content on Youtube very distrubing. I think there is a generalised dehumanisation of migrants happening in lots of Western countries. When people are consistently talked about as “illegals” or “aliens” and otherwise dehumanised, it follows that they should not enjoy the same basic rights or decent treatment that we would expect for ourselves. 

Finally, I have been thinking a lot about why migrants from Ukraine got such good treatment in the US and, indeed, in the UK while migrants from other countries do not. On a fundamental level, there is very little that distinguishes many Ukrainian refugees from many Middle Eastern, African, and South American migrants to Europe and the US in the past few years. I think racism and assumptions about Ukrainians’ potential to integrate are at the root of much of the lack of protest against Ukrainian refugees.

Bruno Verduzco, a Princeton student with roots in Mexico City, has quickly become a standout figure on campus, known for his deep passion for politics, human rights, and the arts. As the Publicity Chair for *Más Flow* and an active leader in the NGO *TECHO México*, Bruno has demonstrated a unique ability to connect with people and inspire change. Despite his last name, Verduzco, meaning “dark green,” his personality is anything but – described by Vicky Caballero Quinn as “dependable, energetic, and bubbly,” he radiates positivity wherever he goes.

Reflecting on their first true connection, Amanda Hugas recalls, “I had seen Bruno around at various events and social gatherings during our freshman year at Princeton, but we really connected during Más Flow auditions. Despite his tall, lanky frame, he had a confident salsa step, and his positive energy and smile immediately made me feel we’d click.” This energy carried over as they spent time practicing together, bonding over their shared love for dance.

Beyond his lively presence in group settings, Bruno is also the kind of person you can sit with for hours in deep conversation. He’s the kind of person you could speak to for hours, and you can feel that he genuinely cares about people on a fundamental level. Our coffee chats have lasted for hours, and moments lying on Cannon Green just talking have made me feel truly safe and secure in our friendship.

Bruno’s dedication to social causes extends beyond campus involvement. With years of experience at TECHO México, where he has led initiatives from hurricane relief efforts to housing development, he is committed to making a tangible difference in the fight against poverty in Latin America. While sometimes uncertain about the future, Bruno’s passion for art, politics, and advocacy continues to drive him forward as he seeks to blend these interests into a career in international human rights.

Sources:

Amanda Hugas

Vicky Caballero Quinn

Lizet Rodriguez

Bruno Verduzco

Her eyes widened when she heard his name. “Of course I know Ollie,” she replied with a bright smile on her face, “he was the most memorable conversation I had during bicker two years ago.” That was Hutshie’s reaction as I passed her in the aisles of the Ustore on Sunday night, doing what appeared to be her weekly errands. To those who know him, Ollie De Bono is one of the kindest souls on the Princeton campus. In his Instagram profile picture, he wears a green cap with the words “Ivy Club Princeton” embroidered on it. The color of the hat blends in perfectly with the background, a combination of wood brown and natural green. His t-shirt is unpretentious and reflects his warm smile that radiates a welcoming casualness. His modesty is actually a quality that stands out as one of his defining characteristics, according to his friends. His girlfriend, Callie, noted that he would almost always be “too modest” to reveal the parts of himself that are much harder to fathom and unknown to most people he meets. Behind that quiet gaze is a world traveler who has accumulated countless anecdotes over the years during his many international excursions. With his best friend Nelson, he hiked the Camino de Santiago—specifically, the Camino del Norte—a 500-mile network of pilgrimage routes in northwestern Spain known for its challenging elevation changes. Nelson recalls the gratitude he felt for his positive spirit and encouraging attitude throughout their hike, which allowed them to rise to the challenge despite the difficulties they faced. How endearing! Wait until you hear that travel is more than just a way to see the world for him—it’s a way to give back. Callie highlighted how, throughout his travels, Ollie has maintained a deep commitment to service. In Sri Lanka, he “helped an orphanage” and in France, he “took care of the disabled.” At the heart of all his adventures is a sensitivity that his musical taste is perhaps best able to capture. The pieces of his life could have been the soundtrack to Indiana Jones, but instead they are the sounds of “artists like Taylor Swift and Lana Del Ray” of whom Ollie seems to be a “die-hard fan.” With Ollie as a student, this semester’s journalism class promises to be a real treat!

I loved how these articles (and video) took on similar topics – comparisons and analyses of Trump and Biden’s immigration policies – and still felt like vastly differently articles. I’m continuing to approach our weekly readings as “example of craft,” (and then waffling between that and whether I should think about policy, but whatever) so I was focused on the way they all transmitted their information. The first article, which takes on a historical perspective, was really powerful in building out patterns and providing a strong argument for why Trump’s plan won’t work. But at the same time, there were ambiguities, and that historical focus felt unexciting if that’s fair to say – not boring by any means, but I can’t imagine it captured public attention. Jonathan Blitzer’s article, meanwhile, did a great job of politically analyzing. It used lots of data, maintained clarity through well-defined points, and also had some entertainment factor. The article written by Taladrid, however, was my favorite – and I realize the goal of these readings isn’t value judgment, but I only point that out to notice my own taste in writing. I found the narrative about Bárcena, whose description could’ve been a profile, really compelling. It entertained me, and at the same time the narrative was used to tell a fantastic story about the border and about US-Mexico relations. I was particularly impressed by the pangs of data which pierced the narrative flow – references to Biden’s border-enforcement budget compared to his budget for root causes of migration, “we’re trading one and a half million dollars per minute.” In my own writing, I realize I tend towards preferring narrative, but I want to take the lesson of purposeful data from this article. Using tight, concise, and sparse data points managed to make a deeper impact than a paragraph of data would have. Just something for me to think of going forward.

The monetary/political aspect of the border really caught my attention this week. By highlighting trade-relations between Mexico and the United States, I felt like Taladrid brought up the often-unseen part of politics – an affirmation of how imaginary harsh border policies are, his article showed that mutual exchange is necessary for the survival of both countries. In this context, “closing the border,” and other enforcement techniques felt as political as López Obrador’s new airport. I felt like Blitzer’s article did an amazing job of showing the border as a political issue too; seeing Republican pushback against Biden’s border bill, when it’s something that they would support if one of their politicians raised it, shows the absurdity of the political game. More than anything, it maybe shows the benefit Trump and other Republicans get from illegal immigration – they can mobilize the topic, and therefore use it to gain more votes.

After Tuesday’s debate, it felt impossible to read these articles without thinking about Kamala’s insertion into this conversation. When immigration came up as a topic, I remember feeling the air leave the room I was in – there’s an understanding (one shown by Taladrid in Mexico’s double-bind, where they fear helping Trump get reelected) that any conversation around immigration will go Trump’s way. Kamala managed to rope-a-dope, which the media loved, but not before making certain statements about border security. The parallels between her and Biden were clear, and it felt, again, like a very political move. My final comment is that I find it super interesting how, when immigrants from other countries come to the US, those countries feel the pressure. While Mexico tries not to make their border policies based solely on American interests, I was wondering how Haitian news outlets might be reacting to Trump’s comments about Springfield.