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.