Azmat Khan’s two-part series is truly illuminating. It highlights the chasm between what governments promise, especially about protecting civilian life in war, and the actual delivery of their mandates. It shows that unless there is a public pressure to do so, there is no incentive to preserve civilian life. There will be no accountability, given that investigations into violations are usually conducted by the groups that commit the attacks in the first place. It also led me to a broader reflection on the false promises of technology versus the reality of how it is changing our world. As former Pentagon adviser Lawrence Lewis put it, “we don’t use [these technological capabilities] to bring down risk for civilians. We just use them so we can make attacks that maybe we couldn’t do before”. That is the paradox of technological progress. When we think it will make us more effective at the things we already do, it encourages behaviors that do exactly the opposite. They “create greater legal and moral space for greater risk.”
So the responsibility of determining whether certain actions are the result of real mistakes or deliberate negligence, especially in a war where the victims of military action are often reduced to collateral damage, falls upon the public. When the public does not have access to proper information, we become unable to perform this role. This is something that institutions of power perfectly understand and the reason why they take measures to limit the information that is publicly available.
There are clear parallels with what Azmat Khan reported on and what we see in the Middle East with respect to a disregard for civilian life in the pursuit of military objectives. Israel has reportedly deliberately obstructed journalists’ reporting, censored and even killed those covering the war in Gaza (see sources below). This is why investigative journalism is extremely important, especially in these contexts, because it provides the public with the information it needs to play its part in holding institutions of power to account for their actions. When journalists are prevented from doing their jobs, all of society suffers.
I also enjoyed reading the articles about the integration of Afghan refugees in Missouri or about the Bowling sisters. These wonderful stories shine a light on the agency, innovation, and resilience of the people we usually talk and write about, placing them at the center of their own stories rather than keeping them as objects of our own curiosity.
Finally, I once again found it interesting that the vast majority of Afghan refugees live in neighboring countries – namely Iran (3.4 million) and Pakistan (1.9 million). These statistics remind us that other countries also play a vital role in the distribution of global refugees, oftentimes to a larger extent than places like Europe and North America, yet they seldom sensationalize this issue. That is why I am particularly interested in exploring how the global south handles refugee resettlement and migration in general as I believe there is a lot we can learn from observing these overlooked contexts.
Sources
https://theconversation.com/how-israel-continues-to-censor-journalists-covering-the-war-in-gaza-228241
https://rsf.org/en/pressure-intimidation-and-censorship-israeli-journalists-have-faced-growing-repression-past-year
https://rsf.org/en/one-year-gaza-how-israel-orchestrated-media-blackout-region-war
Author: Gil Joseph (Page 2 of 2)
On September 24, hundreds of people gathered in Boston Common to protest the spreading of false claims about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio. “The goal of this rally was to show that Haitians and advocates in Boston stand in solidarity with Haitians in Springfield,” says Heather Yountz, an immigration attorney at the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute who spoke at the rally. Community organizers and activists like Yountz joined Boston’s Haitian community in condemning what they see as a racist smear against Haitian immigrants.
The rally is the latest demonstration of public opposition to Trump and Vance’s role in spreading rumors about Haitian immigrants in Springfield abducting and eating pets. Police have said there is no evidence that any pets were harmed by members of the immigrant community. Nonetheless, Republican politicians have continued to push this false narrative, sparking outrage in the Haitian community across the country.
Protests like the one in Boston have proliferated across the country since the September 10 presidential debate which saw Trump repeat the baseless claims. One week later, protesters showed up with their blue and red flags at a Trump campaign event on Long Island to express their indignation. Days later, about 200 people gathered outside of the North Miami City Hall in Florida to denounce the former President’s racist remarks. In Chicago, a rally was held on Federal Plaza, which brought together community members to show support for Haitians across the United States.
“It’s bittersweet,” Yountz says when asked about her experience attending the rally in Boston. “It’s horribly sad that we had to hold a rally to combat racist lies,” she added. Still, the rallies have become a source of joy for many in the Haitian community, who are thrilled to see the outpouring of support. Safirah Isme, whose family lives in Springfield, is one of those people. “The only thing that has brought any inkling of joy or optimism is how fast [people] worked to debunk the baseless claims, and [stand up against] the fear-mongering”, says Isme.
Isme’s family has experienced the consequences of Trump and Vance’s actions firsthand. Since coming into the national spotlight, the city of Springfield has been rocked by bomb threats that have closed schools and offices. The city’s residents — and particularly its Haitian population — are afraid to leave their homes, even to go shopping. Leaflets calling for the “mass deportation” of Haitians immigrants and referring to them as “beats off the fields” have been distributed around the city by members of extremist organizations such as the KKK and the Proud Boys.
The repercussions of these actions are already being felt by people like Isme’s uncle, a recent Springfield resident. Several recruitment agencies have told him they will have to wait until after the election to decide whether to hire Haitians. The consequences are even more severe for others. Isme’s uncle’s brother-in-law got abused while walking around. “They threw raw eggs and debris at him while yelling offensive language [before] they left,” Isme shared. These experiences have prompted Isme’s family to consider leaving Springfield, fearing that the situation might worsen for them. “The stress has become almost unbearable”, Isme said.
At many of these gatherings, the focus seems to be on voting as a form of protest. Speaking to a crowd of protesters in Florida, Hedder Pierre-Joseph, President of the Democratic Haitian Caucus of Florida, shouted: “We are US citizens right now, and we are going to vote.” At the Boston rally, City Council President Ruthzee Louijeune – the first Haitian-American to hold this position – reiterated to the crowd the importance of voting. “We must make sure that the 300 000 registered Haitians in Florida vote. We must make sure that we vote here in Massachusetts”, said Louijeune.
This week, I appreciated the focus on war—and specifically Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—as a cause of migration. Migration does not occur in a vacuum. Whenever there are mass movements of people across international borders, they can always be attributed to social or economic events that push migrants out, attract them to other countries, or keep them in their home countries by creating immobility. The United Nations is the only body that can determine refugee status. Its definition states that refugees are “people forced to flee their own country and seek safety in another country.” As we can see, there are push factors at play, making it important to pay attention to phenomena like wars for how they can produce refugeehood.
I also appreciated the historical context provided by the BBC, which notably pointed out that Russian “disenchantment” with the failure of Westernization to deliver on its promises led to “a retreat from the nation state and a return to a more assertive imperial stance toward its ‘near abroad’.” This explanation was very important for understanding Russia’s gradual shift toward authoritarianism that today, in conjunction with China, threatens to create a new world order that “pits the world’s democracies against the world’s authoritarian regimes.” The broader geopolitical implications of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have almost certainly played a role in generating support for Ukrainian refugees in the Western world, particularly in the United States. From the perspective of these countries, this is no ordinary conflict. Governments immediately understood what was at stake: the existing world order. Those who want to preserve the status quo have an incentive to staunchly oppose Russia, and many who want to see it change might take a more pragmatic approach. This is the case in many African countries, where Russia’s influence has grown in recent years, according to the head of the U.S. Africa Command on CNN. Many African countries are deeply frustrated by the consequences of Western interventionism on their continent and by a “simmering resentment over a lack of representation in international institutions,” according to the Council on Foreign Relations. Amos’s piece on accountability makes this abundantly clear by pointing out how international organizations are suspected of being “a tool to deal with the weak.” In fact, since its creation in 2002, the ICC has convicted only six people for its core crimes out of 32 cases. All of those convicted have been from Africa, according to a recent video by Al Jazeera.
photo on American University
There is mounting evidence that international institutions have been disadvantageous to those who hold little geopolitical power. There are arrest warrants against Putin and one pending against Netanyahu, but they are not likely to lead to any arrests or prosecutions. It is important to be aware of these geopolitical dynamics as they are able to shape the future of migration flows through the generation of conflicts and inequality, moving forward.
Much of this week’s reading has focused on state and city approaches to managing migration. Recent events have shown that migration is as much a concern for city and state governments as it is for the federal government. In fact, the impacts of a large influx of migrants—positive or negative—are often highly localized. The case of New York City illustrated how a city can find itself at the center of national debates about how the country as a whole is dealing with migration, and how policies at the federal level—like the elimination of Title 42 or the extension of Temporary Protected Status to Venezuelans and the recent wave of Haitians—have local implications. This case also shows how migration often brings to light (and exacerbates) pre-existing local challenges. Migration does not occur in a vacuum. Migrants are affected by and react to situations on the ground which are then made even more complex by their heightened vulnerabilities. In New York City, migrants have added to the housing and homelessness crisis which the city has been grappling with for a while.
However, migration management is challenging but not impossible. The example of Ukrainian integration teaches us that where there is a will, there is a way. Between 2022 and 2024, a total of half a million migrants have been relocated to the United States under the Unite for Ukraine program in response to Russia’s invasion of its neighbor.
Photo Source: https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/putins-war-gives-america-a-chance-to-get-serious-about-refugees (Photograph by Mario Tama / Getty)
The integration of Ukrainians in the Uniting States has been smooth overall. What can we learn from this example and is there anything that can be applied to other such instances? As shown by the CBS News piece, bipartisan support and coordination among federal and local actors play an important role and are proving replicable. The most important aspects of that success are slightly less replicable. This includes a broad consensus that the migrant population “deserves” to be welcomed. This is more difficult to achieve because many factors come into play in this determination, including race, geopolitics, culture, and so on. Montoya-Galvez, the CBS News correspondent briefly discussed these points. So we may ask, to what extent can the success of the Ukrainian refugees really be replicated?
In conclusion, this week’s readings have highlighted one key point: buy-in from local governments (state or municipal) is extremely important for effective migration management policy that seamlessly executes the vision set by the executive. This is easier said than done for the same reasons mentioned above, in addition to the complexities surrounding notions of merit. This is becoming increasingly difficult due to the highly polarized nature of politics today. I hope we can use this week’s class to discuss this issue of merit and whether there is anything to be done when some groups are de facto considered more or less deserving of protection than others.
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!
Burgess’s approach to analyzing the practical implications of an Eisenhower-style deportation policy in a potential second Trump administration is incredibly insightful. Trump’s mass deportation program is a central part of his political messaging during the election campaign, and it seems to resonate with many voters in light of growing apprehension about uncontrolled migration. Burgess’s analysis of Eisenhower’s Operation Wetback—which Trump used as a reference point—shows not only the rhetorical differences and divergent policy goals of Trump and Eisenhower around mass deportation, but also how the changing demographic and political landscape in the United States would complicate anything remotely resembling Operation Wetback. I am wary, however, of the conclusion that mass deportation in 2024 is an elusive goal. Trump has proven time and again that he is willing to take unconventional paths when it comes to implementing campaign promises, particularly when it comes to migration governance. The promise of a wall between the United States and Mexico was also met with intense skepticism in 2016. Eight years later, the wall—despite our criticism of its effectiveness—is being built. Title 42 is another measure that shows how far Trump is willing to go to limit immigration. Both the wall and Title 42 were continued by the Biden administration, indicating that immigration policy in the United States is shifting slightly to the right, at least domestically. I hope Burgess’s article will encourage us to be creative in anticipating the paths Trump might take to achieve his agenda, given how the political landscape in the United States (and the world) has also changed, especially in regard to migration.
In fact, the changing political landscape is exactly what Blitzer comments on in his New Yorker article: What’s Behind Joe Biden’s Harsh New Executive Order on Immigration? Blitzer rightfully notes that Biden did not need to institute the executive order that closed down the border to asylum seekers at the time that he did it. The number of asylum seekers was already low at the time, especially compared to last year. But Blitzer showed that Biden’s decision was largely a political one with two main goals: First, to make it clear to voters that the Republican Party is what is standing in the way of a lasting solution to what he now recognizes as a “migrant crisis.” With this executive order, he is expressing his commitment to a solution, but also lamenting his lack of support from Republicans in the Senate. Second, Biden is taking tough measures that he hopes will positively influence public opinion on his administration’s handling of migration ahead of the November elections. This is also reflected in the PBS Newshour video on the main differences between Trump and Biden’s migration policies. Biden is standing firm on the migration issue, contrary to popular expectations. As Blitzer points out, however, his approach does not seem to be working, as Biden is still poorly ranked in the polls on this specific issue. With Biden out of the race, I wonder what has changed and how much of an issue migration will be for Kamala Harris, whom the Republican Party has dubbed “the border czar.”
Finally, I enjoyed reading about Mexico’s role and influence in U.S. migration policy. What struck me most was the recognition of the changing migration dynamics between the United States and Mexico, and within Mexico itself. As Bárcena noted, “[Mexico has] become a country of origin, destination, and transit.” This important quote underscores the changing nature and direction of migration and the importance of transnational approaches to migration governance. I hope we will discuss this in more detail in class, as the success of U.S. migration management will continue to depend in large part on international cooperation.
“There’s a saying popular in Hungary”, he says. “The future is certain. It’s the past that keeps changing.”
This statement from László about the historical significance of the picnic made me think about journalism as a form of archive production. László alludes to the fact that the past is always a battleground. The meaning of historical events is constantly being shaped by the evolving priorities and value systems of the present. While it may be possible for journalists to uncover part of the truth, facts can never fully be untangled from the subjectivity of the narrator. László is also alluding to the question of interpretation which, in many ways, is the piece of any writing that does not neatly exist within the writer’s sphere of influence. While facts can be more or less contentious, what they suggest almost always is. This is why thirty years later (at the time of Longo’s writing) the Picnic still remained a source of controversy. While the author did not necessarily address what these controversies might be, one can imagine that they surround the way it was eternalized (or not) in the social consciousness and its true significance. I enjoyed how Longo seamlessly incorporated the archives and historical facts into an engaging narrative that juggles multiple perspectives. I am curious about the tact of emancipating oneself from the constraints of a given form while adhering to the established conventions. I wonder how the author went about taking that liberty while honoring what seems to be, at least in important ways, didactic, archival work.
László’s statement is one that could be used to illuminate some of my reactions to Goudeau’s recounting of the progression of the US’s migration policy. While reading Goudeau’s piece, I could not help but imagine what the post-Covid era (2020-2030) entry would look like. Over the past five years, we have noticed a progressive shift rightward in the US’s migration discourse, as well as in the country’s policy. In the next few days, the Biden administration could expand the “temporary” asylum restrictions that were enacted in June into “a central feature of the asylum system” (Hamed Aleaziz, New York Times). This would be especially surprising given that the Trump administration attempted a similar move in 2018 which was blocked by a federal court. Goudeau would suggest however that migration policy in the United States has always been fluid and a reflection of the preoccupations of the time. If the past is indicative of anything, it is that what is happening in US politics today is a continuation of historical processes that have always defined the US’s approach to migration. Is there then anything fundamentally different about the rise of anti-immigrant sentiments in US politics right now?
Finally, I found the discussion about the lead interesting insofar as it problematized the purpose of a lead. Is it to grab the reader’s attention? Is it a summary? Can a good lead be memorable, provocative, or should it be simply informative?
