Articles such as Caitlin Dickerson’s are so vitally important to journalism, society and politics. Her and Addario brought to readers the extremity of the experiences migrants are willing to put themselves and their children through just to try and reach the US, experiences which I think are not portrayed for their gruesome reality in the way that they should be in political discourse. However when reading I thought back to the discussion a few of us had at the welcoming center about The Struggling Girl and journalists responsibility whilst documenting and relaying the experiences of people they are writing about. In this case I thought it was particularly interesting as Dickerson and Addario decided to make the journey alongside the other migrants, rather than it being a case of western journalists being dropped into situations momentarily to witness and relay them in their current moment, and then leaving once they’ve got enough material rather than experiencing things for themselves. At the same time, while they photographed people and the journey and talked about their struggles, such as not being able to afford food, medicine, as well as meeting unaccompanied children I just imagined how uncomfortable I would be to be reporting and spectating, knowing that potentially I had the power to ease their some of their economic struggles as well established american journalists but choosing not to in order to get an accurate ‘scoop’. They are doing such an essential job of reporting the realities of the Darien gap but at the same time I can’t help feeling morally ambiguous about spectating so much human struggle without intervening, especially to those whose life experiences they will go on to profit from once they are back in the US and have written about them. I think this is why journalism by those living experiences on the ground, such as the type of journalism we have seen the past year from Gazans, needs to be massively amplified and supported. 

In terms of the policy issues discussed, the failures of both deterrence as well as more conciliatory policies was a common theme. The Atlantic article heavily pointed out the unintended effects of deterrence policies, whilst the New Yorker made it clear that more conciliatory policies – by no surprise – don’t end up stemming the constant flow of individuals trying to immigrate for economic opportunities. I think framing is so important when considering these issues. Out of moral principle, refugees and asylum seekers should not be framed as causing immigration ‘problems’ for the US or any country who has signed the refugee conventions. They are simply operating within a framework states have agreed and committed too. Even with the case of economic immigrants, I think as Anuj Gupta at the welcoming center put it, the US needs more workers, and there are so many unfulfilled jobs. The bigger issue here is connecting immigrants with the necessary job openings because the reality is, yes maybe NYC is spending a few billion dollars on receiving immigrants, but the city budget is $112.4 billion. The US spends over 700 billion annually on the military.  I am not an expert in budgetary affairs, but I think  these numbers need to be contextualized, especially when it comes to immigrants and the net gain they contribute over time.