Author: Lizet Rodriguez (Page 1 of 2)

Title: New Realities at the Border: Colombians, Mexicans, and the Changing Face of Migration

Even for those who survive the dangerous crossing, challenges abound. Mario, a Colombian migrant, describes how his wife, Eliana, lives in constant fear of detection, altering even the smallest details of her daily life: “When she’s on the train, she doesn’t look forward; she looks down, so they won’t [notice her].” Additionally, Eliana herself found her initial interactions in America to be different than she expectedt: “Funny enough, she found that she was pretty welcomed by Americans, but not very welcomed by Latin Americans.”

This transformation reflects the evolving dynamics along the U.S.-Mexico border and the broader migration landscape. Once defined by a fluid exchange of families, resources, and culture, the border now bears the scars of decades of militarization and fundamental changes to migration patterns. “The Mexican border… was less populated at that time, and people were just kind of crossing back and forth, had family sometimes land on both sides. So it was a very more fluid border at that point,” explains Rosina Lozano, a historian at Princeton University specializing in the history of migration.

Today, that fluidity is gone, replaced by walls, checkpoints, and patrols. Migration scholar Douglas Massey describes how these changes altered migration patterns fundamentally: “By militarizing the border… the flow shifted… from temporary workers to permanently settled families.” He adds, “Border militarization almost doubled the size of the undocumented population because it discouraged return migration.”

The repercussions extend beyond policy. The arrival of new groups of migrants, such as Colombians, has strained relationships within established border communities. “People that they’re seeing are no longer their compadres, paisanos; they’re people from other countries,” Massey notes. He explains how this shift has contributed to rising tensions and even political realignments: “The Mexican population along the borders [is] heavily citizens of many generations, and they see these people as competitors.” This dynamic partly explains a turn in Texas border counties against the migration across the border that may have been more easily accepted before.

The Mexican Border Today: A Complex Legacy

The story of migration at the U.S.-Mexico border cannot be told without considering the role of Mexicans themselves, whose migration patterns have drastically shifted over time. Once frequent border-crossers, many Mexicans now avoid the journey altogether, deterred by the dangers posed by increasingly militarized policies. Lozano highlights how natural landscapes, such as deserts and rivers, have been weaponized to deter crossings: “The federal government actually has in their strategy that they’re using the environment as a deterrent, because they know people will die if they go that direction.”

Within the U.S., many Mexican-American communities along the border have developed a complex relationship with newcomers. Massey points out that Mexican-descent populations, often U.S. citizens of many generations, feel the strain of competing resources and shifting demographics. This competition, alongside broader economic changes, has fueled resentment toward newer migrants. “And so,” Massey adds, “we’re seeing political shifts that reflect those tensions.”

Newcomers and Their Challenges

Yet, Colombians and other newcomers persist, driven by dire circumstances in their home countries. Eliana, shared her family’s plight: “Her dad was a member of FARC… when the deal was signed… they are going after people who chose to step back.” For others, the challenges are systemic rather than overtly violent. “Now that they’re here, they have two years… either get asylum or go back to Colombia,” Mario explains, summarizing the stark choices many face. The asylum process is anything but predictable and when asked to describe the process the couple indicated the unpredictable nature of the appointment time and date seeing as they are at the discretion of the judge, who can decide to move a date sooner or later than anticipated.

For migrants like Jaime, who settled in Philadelphia, the obstacles extend beyond the initial journey. He speaks of the challenges of finding affordable housing amid gentrification: “Even people who lived here for many years had to leave because of the gentrification situation… The rent and mortgage interest go up, and it’s not that affordable, especially for new immigrants.” This displacement shows how crossing the border is just the first step in a long journey, as migrants face new challenges like rising housing costs and limited resources. Even after arriving, they must work to overcome these obstacles in their search for stability and a place to belong.

Still, Jaime emphasizes the resilience and adaptability of migrants as they strive to integrate. “For me, it was a challenge… discovering a new society, new friends, new everything,” he reflects. Despite the hardships, Jaime has found ways to build community. “We have neighbors; they are very important. You build community with them, sharing food and music,” he says, contrasting this experience with his time in New York. Yet building community, while essential, is often difficult for migrants who face isolation, discrimination, and economic pressures, underscoring the ongoing struggle to find a sense of belonging in unfamiliar and often unwelcoming environments.

The Changing Face of Migration

The stories of both Colombians and Mexicans show how migration has changed, shaped by stricter policies, dangerous routes, and shifting demographics. Despite these changes, the reasons people migrate remain the same: to survive, find safety, and build a better life.

As migration evolves, it’s crucial to understand what it means for migrants to adapt and succeed in new places. These stories highlight the humanity behind immigration policies and the determination of those who make the journey. Whether fleeing violence or seeking opportunity, migrants reflect the challenges, hopes, and enduring pursuit of a better future that define the American dream.

Things left to add: interview with a law enforcement and more commentary about the border wall overall. I think I want to do a bit more historical analysis as well as a paragraph incorporating “People have always found ways to use the U.S.-Mexico border to cross, including the Chinese in earlier eras,” says Rosina Lozano. “At the time, many learned Spanish, dressed as Mexicans, and adapted to blend in” I am not sure where I would incorporate this but that could also be interesting.

The article about dementia is really eye-opening because it shows how complex and confusing it can be when trying to understand a person’s ability to make decisions as they age, especially with dementia. A lot of people think that once someone is diagnosed with dementia, they can no longer make decisions for themselves. However, the article explains that this isn’t true. In fact, a person with dementia can still make decisions, but it depends on the situation and how advanced their condition is. The bridge between both describing the procedure of loosing memories with dementia and intertwining with the chronology of the story beautidfully shows not only the overall applications of Dementia but the personal impact of the disorder.

One important point the article makes is that doctors can disagree on whether a person with dementia is still able to make decisions. This is because there is no one set way to test someone’s decision-making ability. It’s not as simple as saying “yes” or “no” to whether someone is able to make choices. Instead, it’s a lot more specific and can change over time. For example, a person might still be able to decide what they want to eat, but they might not be able to choose the best medical treatment for themselves. The article pin-points a hole of thought within dementia and tries to decompose the complexity of this ethical decision which is often overlooked.

The article also talks about the legal side of dementia. Even if someone with dementia can’t remember a decision, like who they want to make decisions for them, that decision can still count. This is confusing because it means a judge might have to decide whether someone is able to make decisions, even if doctors and family members disagree. The case of Diane in the article is a good example of this. Her family fought over who should be her legal guardian, which led to a lot of legal fees and stress. This also brings into the discussion the relationship between ethical and legal atmospheres. How much does a doctor know and how much does a judge know? Which is more important? How does the autonomy of the patient change?

An important theme in this week’s readings is how individuals connect to larger issues within a community, showing how personal experiences reflect bigger problems in the system. In the article “Fixing the Broken Lovelies”, Naomi, a nurse, shares her experience working in a psych ward. She describes feeling overwhelmed by the growing number of patients coming in, which makes her job harder and leaves her feeling exhausted. This reflects a bigger issue—the lack of resources in the unit. Naomi also notices problems like patients using medication improperly and seeing people smoking outside the ward. There’s a sign she passes on her way to work that says, “Home of the forgetful and the forgotten,” which highlights the challenge of caring for people who may be overlooked or forgotten in society. This all shows how Naomi’s personal struggles in the ward represent larger, systemic issues in healthcare and mental health care. This also ties into the ability to present a topic and indicate a larger issue of the lack of resources for these sections of the community.

Initially, what drew my attention was the Preston’s article about the amount of actionable planning that Trump was doing toward deportation. He spent his entire campaign pushing this agenda, but now that he has the power to appoint people in power, we see that there is this deep desire to fulfill the threats he made. But the how still remains a mystery to most.

Once in office, he followed through with harsh policies like mass deportations, raids on homes and workplaces, and strict border enforcement. For example, his administration used an old law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, to send agents into communities, separating families and causing disruptions in schools and businesses. Which opens the question of what he might

The leaders he appointed, like Stephen Miller and Tom Homan, pushed these policies aggressively. Trump also used strong language, calling migrants “predators” and blaming them for crime, unemployment, and even inflation. While this kind of talk energized some of his supporters, it may have worsened stereotypes and divisions.

At first, these policies seemed to have an effect—border crossings dropped during Trump’s first six months in office. But as time went on, migrants adapted. By December 2023, U.S. authorities recorded 250,000 unlawful crossings in one month, a record number. This shows how migration patterns take time to adjust, and the impact of policies isn’t always immediate. Migrants often weigh risks and conditions at home before deciding to leave, so the effects of enforcement measures might not fully show up for years. How do we feel about the delay in migration patterns? Should we give policies more time to work before judging their success or failure? This delay is quite contrasting to the digital age we live in so how does this contribute to issues of information getting to people? What role should public opinion play in shaping immigration policies, especially when the issue is so polarizing?

On top of that, these policies caused problems for communities. Long delays in court left migrants stuck in limbo, while residents grew frustrated with what they saw as a strain on local resources. Policies focused mainly on punishment may not address the root causes of migration, like violence or lack of opportunities in migrants’ home countries. As well as what kind of support are these communities getting for this process?

What makes the article so effective is how it explores the gray area between the extremes of immigration policy. It highlights the urgency of securing borders by Trump’s enforcement-focused measures. These policies, while aimed at deterring unlawful migration, often created new problems, such as humanitarian crises, family separations, and overburdened resources. The article makes it clear that while enforcement may be necessary, it is not sufficient on its own to address the complexities of migration.

On the other hand, the article also delves into Harris’s preventative strategies, which aim to address the root causes of migration by creating stability and opportunity in migrants’ home countries. Programs under her leadership, such as job creation and workforce training in Central America, demonstrate that investment in long-term solutions can reduce migration. However, these efforts fall short when it comes to addressing the immediate chaos at the U.S.-Mexico border, where record numbers of people are arriving, often fleeing violence or economic collapse.

By presenting both perspectives, the article effectively illustrates that neither approach alone is enough to solve the problem. Enforcement without compassion can exacerbate suffering and strain systems, while long-term solutions can feel disconnected from the urgent realities at the border. The real challenge lies in finding a balanced approach that combines immediate action with long-term planning, one that considers both the human and systemic aspects of migration.
How can policymakers better balance enforcement and humanitarian concerns to create effective immigration policies?

Both Peter Hessler’s  “What the Garbage Man Knows” and Deborah Amos’s “Dancing for Their Lives” pulled me and other readers into the lives of people doing whatever it takes to survive in tough situations. I was drawn to the author’s ability to pull me into the daily life of the subjects as well as give me an indepth description of who they are without merely listing of features or information but by situating themselves and us into their world.  Hessler follows Sayyid, a garbage collector in Cairo who understands people deeply by sorting through their trash. Meanwhile, Amos explores the lives of Iraqi women in Syria who, as refugees, sometimes have to turn to prostitution to support their families. Both writers dive into worlds far removed from their own, gaining the trust of the people they write about, while also dealing with tough questions about how much they should share and how best to show respect. With issues as big as divorce and traficking, I wonder where the line of journalism is? Are they always okay with the way their life is portrayed? Since Sayyid is illiterate, what are the methods of ensuring that as a reporter you are presenting information correctly? 

Hessler starts with Sayyid’s daily life rather than his personal backstory, letting readers understand him through what he does and what he notices. This approach helped me and  readers see Sayyid as a person with skills and knowledge, rather than just someone who’s “uneducated” or “poor.” For example, even though Sayyid can’t read, he’s learned to pick up on small clues, like how women throw out empty pill packs with days marked on them. This allows for us to know how he views the world rather than merely getting a description of who he is. But Hessler also shows us the challenges Sayyid faces. He doesn’t get paid much, he had to serve longer in the military because he couldn’t read, and there are strict gender roles in his community. By not jumping in with personal facts, Hessler lets us get to know Sayyid through his actions, which builds trust. But this makes you wonder: How can journalists like Hessler build this trust with people who may be hesitant to open up? This piece was written over a long time but what steps and procedures did the author follow to ensure that the relationship had been properly built? How do they gain respect without crossing boundaries?

In Amos’s “Dancing for Their Lives,” she brings us into the world of Iraqi refugee women who sometimes feel they have no other option but to sell their bodies to survive. There was a description of these two young girls about 12 years of age watching the other women dance which showcases how desperation passes from one generation to the next. The idea of dancing is a means of survival that is not only present in the now but in the generations to follow and this description does an amazing job at capturing that.  How does she observe and record without standing out too much or putting herself in danger? And how do reporters handle the tension between wanting to show the real story and respecting the dignity of those involved?Both pieces make us think hard about what journalists should and shouldn’t do when reporting on sensitive issues. How do they respect people’s struggles without making them look like just victims? And when they immerse themselves in these communities, how do they avoid making things worse for the people involved?.

Learning about the war in Ukraine has shown me a new side of warfare one where regular people, like you and me, are central to gathering and sharing evidence in real-time. Through tools like Ukraine’s “e-Enemy” app, civilians can document what they see around them and contribute directly to how the world views the conflict. This app empowers millions of Ukrainians to submit information about Russian military actions, each time reminding them with a message: “Their relatives, friends, and the whole world will learn about their brutal crimes against the Ukrainian people” (TIME). But as I read about this, I began to wonder: could this be a double-edged sword? What happens when ordinary citizens become the main witnesses to war crimes? Where do the desires of ethics clash with the desire to showcase the raw truth? I find trouble with this intersections and I cannot imagine what it would be like for someone else.

One part of this new wave of evidence gathering is something called the Berkeley Protocol, which establishes guidelines for verifying content so that it’s accurate and credible. It’s basically a roadmap to make sure digital information collected by people in war zones can be used as real evidence. But with all of this new technology, it seems like the law is still playing catch-up, and there’s no guarantee courts will accept “citizen evidence.” This made me question whether international law needs to evolve. Should courts adapt to include new types of digital evidence, and if so, how would that change the legal landscape? It’s fascinating but also challenging to think about. I enjoyed thinking about the legal and humanitarian intersection of the reading.

Another big limitation is that the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is supposed to hold people accountable for war crimes, doesn’t have the power to prosecute certain crimes, like Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. This is partly because powerful countries including the United States have been reluctant to support a system that might someday hold their own leaders accountable. It makes me wonder: what happens to all this evidence collected by Ukrainians if no court can prosecute the biggest offenses? If justice isn’t possible at this level, does the whole idea of open-source evidence lose its impact?

As I read about open-source investigations, I couldn’t help but think about Bellingcat, a group of volunteers who analyze videos, images, and background clues to verify events like the MH17 shootdown. These people work from home, using digital tools to find the truth, often at great personal risk. But this raises another question: How do open-source investigators keep themselves safe? And what kinds of protections should exist for people doing this risky but essential work? I know that there are things such as the whistleblowers protections for legally important people so how do these protections translate?

I also found myself thinking about how people’s motivations and patience play a role in this kind of evidence collection. The TIME article mentions how Ukrainians want to ensure the truth is recorded before memories fade. Yet, legal processes are slow, and there’s a real risk that people may get frustrated with the pace of justice. I wondered how delays might affect the motivation of those documenting events. If justice takes too long, could it lead to a sense of helplessness or discourage people from submitting evidence? And what impact does this have on both the victims and those working tirelessly to record these events?

Ultimately, reading about open-source investigations in Ukraine has left me with a lot of questions. We’re seeing how ordinary people can contribute to documenting war crimes, but there’s still so much to figure out. How can we make sure this evidence is reliable and safe to collect? And in a world where everyone is a potential witness, what will justice look like in the future? These questions feel urgent, especially as we consider how technology is reshaping not just warfare but also the pursuit of truth and accountability.

Reading pieces like “Seventy Miles in Hell”, I understand even more how hard and risky these journeys are. In the Darién Gap, for instance, migrants leave behind things like shoes or even bits of fabric tied to trees to show which way is safe. It’s a constant struggle against hunger, thirst, and the threat of injury, and this piece really shows that deterrence policies aren’t working. People are desperate enough to try anyway, and these policies only make their journeys harder. Having colored fabric indicate where they are meant to walk or avoid showcases the close community and desire for survival which is generalized through the desire for a better life.

Jonathan Blitzer’s piece dives into U.S. immigration policies, which often try to scare people away rather than actually help. As I read it, I kept thinking: if these policies only make people take more dangerous routes, shouldn’t there be a different approach? It seems like we need to rethink U.S. policy to offer more realistic support, rather than leaving people “trapped” as undocumented or pushing them toward even riskier routes. The U.S has these patterns repeat throughout time yet it feels like there is little overall change.

One interesting but controversial tool created to help migrants in the desert is the Transborder Immigrant Tool. This GPS-like system helps people find water sources, which can be a lifesaver. But as journalists, covering a tool like this isn’t easy. We can spread awareness about it, but if we aren’t careful, we could accidentally expose resources that need to stay hidden to protect people. So, there’s a big question here: what’s our responsibility as journalists when it comes to reporting on things that directly help people in danger? Should we focus on telling the story without risking their safety? I think being a journalist isn’t just about telling stories—it’s about honoring the people in those stories by being thoughtful and respectful. This is also a method of art which also brings into question the intersection of art and advocacy. In the Darien Gap piece, I found that information about the color of a safe passage might leave those throughout the path exposed.

And that’s where empathy comes in. Good journalism isn’t just about facts; it’s about understanding people’s experiences and treating them with care. How can we report on migration in a way that shows the struggle, respects the tools people use to survive, and maybe even makes policymakers think differently? Should there be more safe resources, like water and shelter, along these migration routes so people don’t have to risk their lives for basic needs? By focusing on empathy and asking these questions, we can try to tell these stories in a way that both informs people and makes them care.

In The New Yorker article, “Biden’s Dilemma at the Border,” we see how hard it is to make real changes to U.S. border policies. While leaders have tried to humanize migrants and reduce harsh tactics, these policies still don’t match the tough reality that migrants face. Even with new policies, the current system doesn’t address what migrants actually need to survive. This raises a bigger question: Could the problems at the border be less about lacking the desire to help and more about issues with leadership and a system that’s unable to keep up? If so, this means we might need to shift our perspective, focusing on deeper, structural changes in leadership and process rather than just new policies. The article suggests that it’s not just about changing rules but about fixing the whole system to meet the real, complex needs of people trying to migrate today.

The scenes that we have read described the chaos and desperation that conflict brings, especially when civilians are caught in the crossfire. Images of people clinging to planes, desperate to escape, show just how urgent and dire the situation becomes when a city falls into disorder. On the other side, military personnel are making life-or-death decisions, which leads to a lot of tension between those making the calls and the civilians on the ground.

One thing that stands out is how airstrikes are sometimes talked about like a video game, where operators describe the combat zone as “poppin’” with targets. How did we get to this level of detachment, where life and death are reduced to something that seems more like a game than reality? When that kind of attitude is taken, tragic outcomes follow, like civilians and children being killed due to miscalculations or flawed intelligence. What does it say about our military systems when those calling the shots don’t feel the weight of the consequences?

Then there’s the problem of proving casualties. Families who lose loved ones in airstrikes, like those of Katbeeah, are left grieving, but there’s so much red tape involved in verifying these deaths. Sometimes, reports are rejected because there’s not enough proof, or because the information is too confusing, limiting our understanding of what really happened. What kind of system allows for such disconnect between the reality on the ground and the reports being filed? How do we move forward when we can’t even agree on the basic facts of who died and why? It almost seems like these families are forced to grieve in silence, without proper acknowledgment of their loss.

At the same time, it raises the question of how the Afghan community is coping now. What does the distribution of Afghan refugees look like, both in the U.S. and globally? What resources or support do these communities have, and are they getting the help they need to rebuild their lives? Are we seeing a true effort to embrace these refugees, or is it more about tolerating their presence? The idea that these immigrants can “revitalize” communities is promising, but does that line up with the struggles they face daily?

And then, looking at the bigger picture of military airstrikes, hidden Pentagon documents reveal repeated mistakes and failures that have cost countless civilian lives. There’s talk of “mistakes” happening, but why are these mistakes so common? Why is it that investigations into these incidents often don’t even involve talking to survivors or visiting the sites? How can we trust a system that seems to lack accountability at such a high level?

These questions highlight the gaps in understanding, from the military operators who are distanced from the real consequences of their actions, to the civilians whose lives are shattered by those decisions, and to the systems that prevent us from fully knowing the truth. How do we address these issues and bring more humanity and accountability into these situations? And what does this mean for the future of conflict and the people who are inevitably caught in its wake?

NYC Faces Criticism for Paying Migrants to Leave Shelters Amid Crisis
New York City has been facing backlash after the initiation of a program which offers migrants up to $4,000 to leave taxpayer-funded shelters. The initiative is a part of Mayor Eric Adam’s efforts to alleviate the city’s shelter system from the influx of demand due to migrant arrivals since the expiration of Title 42 in May (NJ1015, 2023).

There have been at least 150 migrant families that have been encouraged to seek permanent housing or to relocate. This program comes as New York City received over 110,000 migrants over the past year, exceeding the capacity of the shelter system. There are other temporary solutions such as compensating home owners to house migrants in private residences. (NY Post, 2024).

The New York shelter system is obligated to house all those that are in need but the definition has been stretched to its capacity. Mayor Adams stated that the influx of migrants could cost the city around $12 billion dollars over the next three years. As the shelters become overcrowded and overflowing, the city is being pushed to search for new alternatives and also try to incentivize migrants to leave the shelters. (FairUS, 2023).

Although the majority of the $4,000 per family is aimed to help secure long-term housing, there are some people that have used the money to try to relocate to other parts of the U.S as well as try to return to their home countries. (NY Post, 2024).

While some see this payment program as a necessary measure to reduce the burden on the shelter system, the program has faced large criticism. Supporters argue the funds provide a crucial lifeline to migrants stuck in overcrowded shelters, helping them transition to more stable living situations (NJ1015, 2023. However, opponents believe the payments are a temporary fix and may incentivize more migration. Groups, like Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), argue that offering cash handouts could encourage more migrants to come to the city, worsening the crisis (FairUS, 2023).

Opponents also worry about the long-term sustainability of this approach, questioning what will happen when more migrants arrive, further straining city resources. As the influx of migrants increases the necessity of a comprehensive plan intensifies. Residents, too, have raised concerns, with some questioning whether this is the best use of city funds as New York faces its own economic crisis (FairUS, 2023).

Mayor Adams has called on the federal government for additional aid, criticizing the Biden administration for not providing sufficient resources. While some emergency funding has been allocated, city officials argue it is not close to what is needed to address the crisis (NY Post, 2024).

As winter approaches and shelters remain full, New York City’s response to the migrant crisis is critically being watched. Mayor Adams has warned that without more federal support, the city will struggle to sustain the current situation. The payments, while offering temporary relief, leave many unanswered questions about the long-term management of the crisis (NJ1015, 2023).

Works Cited
– NJ1015. (2023). *New York Migrant Shelter Payments*.
– FairUS. (2023). *New York City Pays Illegal Migrants $4000 to Leave Its Shelters*.
– NY Post. (2024). *NYC Gave 150 Migrant Families Up to $4K Each to Get Them to Move Out of Taxpayer-Funded Shelters*.

Ukraine has been thrust into global focus due to the ongoing war, transforming the country into both a war zone and a crime scene.Although my knowledge on the place is rather small I loved looking at the interaction between nations.  International bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC) and national courts are deeply involved, and there are talks about retributions for those that cause harm within the court . Journalist Lindsey Hilsum’s war coverage diary offers a personal and harrowing view of the conflict, shedding light on the human suffering caused by the war.Some of the stories were completely heartbreaking and I wonder about the use of journalism as a method to advocate for a person. However, the situation in Ukraine extends beyond its borders, with countries like China navigating a delicate balancing act between Russia and the United States. On the BBC article, China’s attempt at neutrality raises critical questions about impartiality in global conflicts. Can a country truly remain uninvolved in such a polarized world, or does neutrality become impossible in an interconnected international system?

One of the major fears surrounding the conflict is the looming threat of nuclear escalation. The rise of nuclear arms has introduced the possibility of annihilation that frightensUkraine and the  broader global community. This threat has created a political stalemate, but the situation’s evolution remains uncertain. The use of information, in addition to military power, has also become a significant tool in this conflict. Although not fully developed I wonder about the intersectionality of information and political climate. 

One of the more innovative responses to the crisis has been Ukraine’s digital approach to handling the refugee crisis. A prime example is the DIVii app, which digitizes essential legal documents like passports and driver’s licenses to assist with those that have to leave a country which have little to no time to fully think of methods to track their documents. The use of this technology highlights both its strengths and potential drawbacks. While it simplifies documentation, issues of privacy and access arise. For example, not everyone is tech-savvy or literate, which raises the question of whether people with limited technological skills will benefit from the app as much as others. Moreover, data security becomes a concern, especially considering Russia’s history of hacking. How can such sensitive information be protected? The article from HIAS also raises the issue of privacy rights and the regulation of mandatory biometric data collection for asylum-seekers . These concerns call into question how such technologies can balance accessibility as well as security and the ethical responsibility of these institutions. 

The war has also deeply affected Ukrainian culture and art. One striking example is the way artists are reflecting on the intersection of the body and trauma. A Ukrainian artist describes the body as a weapon, saying, “I am a gun.” This metaphor encapsulates how trauma is imprinted on the body, aligning with the themes explored in The Body Keeps the Score. This book presents that intersection of trauma and the body and one of the recommended methods of recovery are dance and theater hence this mechanism is a prime example of the importance of dance and alleviating trauma. The physical manifestation of trauma is prevalent in the way many dancers and artists are expressing their experiences of war . The article highlights how dance, once an expression of heritage or personal identity, has become a method of survival. They bridge combat with the delicacy of dance which. 

Finally, the global response to Ukrainian refugees has also taken a technological turn, with the use of an innovative algorithm to help displaced individuals find new homes . The use of this algorithm represents a growing trend of employing technology to address humanitarian crises. As refugees adapt to new environments, technology facilitates their resettlement, helping to ensure that they not only survive but thrive in their new homes.They get a amount of money for groceries and they are matched with a family that aligns with their interests and needs.

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.