Author: Sophie Steidle (Page 2 of 2)

In the New York Times article critiquing the U.S. immigration system, a redundant and hypocritical portrayal of the system is suggested.  “As Blitzer illustrates, the American immigration system is a victim of its dysfunction. The growing backlog in asylum applications encourages more people to use it to stay in the country; draconian laws and border controls increase the population of “trapped” undocumented immigrants;” The idea of immigrants having to apply to asylum to trap themselves in the U.S. and extend the amount of time they can stay in the states is something that the U.S. isn’t happy about, yet forces it to happen as a byproduct of their system’s dysfunction.

The article also elaborates on the need to make things more dangerous for migrants and the rationale behind making crossing the border more dangerous to keep unauthorized immigrants in check. “It stands to reason that the more desperate the people migrating, the harsher the deterrence must be inflicted. In practice, this boils down to increasing the danger they face crossing the border illegally, the likelihood of detention if caught, and the difficulty of living their lives afterward without being deported.” This quote makes it incredibly clear that more significant dangers on the border will only make things more complex and worse for unauthorized immigrants and could potentially infringe upon human rights and pose unethical actions. Specifically, this quote and explanation made me immediately think about the piece I had completed on the Guantanamo Bay situation and the concerns regarding the human rights of those detained. I believe a consistent problem that arises with immigration is the idea of juggling between being authoritative and also understanding that immigrants are humans with hopes, goals, and dreams. One of the conversations I had at the migrant center this Friday also revolved around ideas about sympathy and how sympathy is such a huge issue when it comes to immigration and immigrants.

The Atlantic article was astounding to me. Hearing about how drug routes have evolved over time and are now being used by people was especially compelling given that it stressed just how difficult events are getting. This part of the article also stresses how much these migrants are willing to endure and go through for what they seek in the States. I found it interesting that these routes are only being patrolled in traditional ways, especially given that their origin was drug-related. “By making migration harder, we can limit the number of people who attempt it.” This quote in the article prompts a severe point that recognizes that although people are under this assumption, it is more complex than we think. Instead, it just prompts an ethical question of whether it is right to make things harder and, as a result, only encourage death.

In the New Yorker article, some concerns I hadn’t even considered along areas where migrants came in came to my attention. Specifically, the article outlines how an increased need for doctors and support emerges given that so many migrants are coming in injured. “Emergency-room doctors struggle to treat new arrivals.” Although it may be obvious, I didn’t initially think about how an influx of people could impact systems other than the initial asylum-seeking system. The cascade and ripple effect make it appear that more officials and professionals are needed in these areas to sustain the levels of people entering medical hospitals. This thought also can be connected to the idea that more immigrants are probably coming in injured, given they’ve had to take more dangerous routes to make it to the border.

Everyone is going is Here by Johnathan Blitzer also had a significant amount of content that I felt as though overlapped well with other themes apparent in the other articles we read. The book’s introduction was solid, especially one of the last lines reading, “Eventually, they would become numbers on government spreadsheets and talking points at election time.” This quote essentially wrapped up immigration in the election in a nutshell. For so many of the migrants, their humanity is stripped away, and they are made faceless. To talk about the issue in such a rash way, they often need to become just a statistic. This reminded me of another conversation I had at the migrant center where we were discussing just that- the need for Migrants to become faceless for them to be treated inhumanely and forget that at their core, they too are humans that have dreams, goals, and aspirations. One consistent theme that appears to be present in the introduction and all of these readings is how impossible it is for the systems currently in place to keep up with demand. Specifically, the introduction outlines this high demand by explaining, “On average, it took about twenty-four months to resolve an asylum claim. In the meantime, more asylum seekers arrived.” This outlines a prominent issue in immigration, something that is only going to be perpetuated and become worse. The follow-up strategy and plan outlined in the introduction claiming that “One of the core premises of U.S. immigration policy…. is deterrence: turn away enough people, and others will stop trying to come” just seems silly. For so many, this is all that they have and the only sign of hope for a better life or a future with some sense of prosperity. Hence, nothing will stop them from coming or at least attempting. I wonder why this policy or way of thinking is still active when asylum applications are only increasing.

I found several  parts of the Hidden Pentagon Records Reveal Patterns of Failure in Deadly Airstrikes by the New York Times exciting and particularly captivating.  One part of the text that stood out to me is when it reads, “In November 2015, after observing a man dragging an “unknown heavy object” into an ISIS “defensive fighting position,” American forces struck a building in Ramadi, Iraq. A military review found that the object was actually “a person of small stature” — a child — who died in the strike.” This segment immeidately caught my emotions and also reinforced an interesting theme that was obvious throughout the beginning of the piece. Many of the stories in the beginning being depicted struck my emotions early on and made me think. Specifically, the story of American forces striking a building in Ramadi, Iraq. only to realize that the “unknown heavy object” being dragged by a man was a child who ended up dying in the strike. That story grabbed my immediate attention and provided an opportunity to emphasize the seriousness of the situation. Using these examples of innocence and depicting how they are being affected severely by the consequences of war is a captivating tactic in the article. It immediately pulls on the reader’s affections especially while they go about reading the rest of the passage. I also think the emphasis on this information being top secret and explicitly found only at the Pentagon archive emphasizes the seriousness of the situation and the severity of these innocent lives lost. It also introduces the importance and significance of the article early on.

The transition in this piece is also incredibly compelling. It draws the line between how not a single record provided includes a finding of wrongdoing or disciplinary action and how these records clearly outline the issue through personal, first-hand events documented in these records.

“To understand how this happened, The Times did what military officials admit they have not done: analyzed the casualty assessments in the aggregate to discern patterns of failed intelligence, decision-making, and execution.” This makes me wonder- did they not purposefully do this because they feared what they would find? Were they afraid that they would realize more innocent lives were being taken than they realized?

I felt that the New York Times article “Airstrikes Allowed America to Wage War with Minimal Risk to its Troops” took a different approach. The article explicitly reads, “Sawsan had been staying with her grandparents for a week when the whole family sat down to dinner on March 5, 2016. All told, there were 21 people around the table.” This quote emphasizes just how quickly these lives change for those affected. To go from being able to sit at the dining room table with all of your family members to suddenly being under attack and receiving several strikes is such a dramatic difference that it has such a traumatic impact.

Upon visiting The Sola Foundation’s website, I found their mission statement inspiring. I especially liked the idea of cultivating meaningful connections and conversations on a small scale, hoping to broaden to more Afghans not explicitly located in Philadelphia. “Our mission is centered on empowering and mobilizing the Afghan community in Philadelphia to cultivate a meaningful connection with the global Afghan community.” Reading about this organization before reading the Missouri piece offered an enjoyable transition . I feel like many of the stories we are reading related to immigration are detailed descriptions of suffering or outlining/bringing attention to struggles that are leaving immigrants behind others. However, these articles highlighting positives and programs being put in place were much more positive and offered a different perspective/light.

Especially in the case of reading Sidiquis’ program and her work,  I found that her efforts in helping refugees and immigrants settle safely and effectively were both impressive and inspiring. I also found the emphasis on tolerating new Americans and “embracing them, embracing who they are” important. I think this point of the argument makes it explicit just how important it is to avoid having these immigrants shape shift and dissociate from their culture and where they are coming from. A follow-up quotation emphasizing that ‘Immigrants and refugees revitalize every community that they resettle because they bring something different” was also interesting.This quote emphasizes the importance of keeping the individual and embracing them for who they are, given that, as this quote explains, each individual has contributions that can be beneficial.

The International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP) released a report claiming migrants held at a federal facility in Guantanamo Bay lived in close-quartered living conditions contaminated by mold and sewage, had inaccessibility to legal communication, and limited access to supplies, clean hygiene, and food according to the The Miami Herald. The International Refugee Assistance Project works to provide human rights and legal protection to refugees. Located along the coast of Cuba, most Guantanamo Bay detainees are Haitians and Cubans.

According to an interview conducted by The Miami Herald, Jose Miranda, a senior staff attorney at the International Refugee Assistance Project, spoke on the inhumane conditions Guantanamo Bay subjects to its detainees. “This is in clear violation of the United States’ legal commitments, and a violation of core values that anyone should have and the U.S. purports to have,” said Miranda to The Miami Herald.

The Miami Herald reported on one Cuban family Miranda had represented and claimed that “they feared political persecution on the island.” Upon coming to Guantanamo Bay, the family was unable to receive adequate medical care and proper schooling.

In addition to holding migrants, Guantanamo Bay is known for holding suspected terrorists after the attacks on 9/11. The detention center held migrants from Haiti during the 1980s and 1990s before detaining Cubans during the 1994 rafter crisis when thousands fled Cuba. According to The Miami Herald, IRAP’s report is asking that the federal government shut the detention facility down.

“Immigration mistreatment always surfaces very late in the news,” said Paola Rodriguez, a senior at Princeton University whose family migrated from Cuba. Rodriguez recognizes the lack of coverage on the issue. “I feel like there isn’t nearly as much awareness made about it,” said Rodriguez.

A spokesperson speaking on behalf of the Department of State denied the report published by The International Refugee Assistance Project, stating explicitly to The Miami Herald, “The claim that migrants housed at the Migrant Operations Center are “detainees” and they lived in prison-like conditions and had their rights violated is false.” The spokesperson told The Miami Herald that the facility is “humanitarian in nature and that people can return to their country of origin at any time, while eligible migrants can wait to be resettled.”

However, Miranda told The Miami Herald migrants were given a “false choice.” Miranda explained that in reality, “People are faced with the choice to wait indefinitely to be resettled somewhere they will be safe or return somewhere where they face persecution.”

In addition to stories like the one Miranda told The Miami Herald, The Latin Times outlined complaints of inadequate healthcare, unlivable conditions, and inaccessibility to legal communication. Despite these assertions, the same Department of State spokesperson who spoke to The Miami Herald claimed conditions are appropriate for migrants.

“The situation in Guantanamo Bay reminds me that there is a lot of bias that goes into immigration,” said Paola Rodriguez. Rodriguez says the tables have turned. “50-60 years ago, if Cuban immigrants touched U.S. soil, they would become U.S. citizens,” said Rodriguez. “Now, it’s not as easy to get U.S. citizenship; it’s much harder.”

The old policy for Cuban immigrants was known as the “Wet Foot, Dry Foot” policy. If a Cuban was intercepted at sea by U.S. officials, they would be sent back to Cuba or forced to resettle in a different country. However, if a Cuban made it to the U.S. on land they were allowed to stay and could apply for residency after one year. The new policy no longer allows Cubans to receive automatic legal status. Instead, Cubans who reach the U.S. are treated like everyone else and have to go through the full legal process.

Rodriguez encourages further advocacy in response to the spokesperson’s statement published in The Miami Herald.  “I think we just have to call out the U.S.,” said Rodriguez. “Once activists and human rights groups call it out, more people bring awareness. Let’s work together with human rights groups to ensure human rights are being prioritized.”

Guerline Jozef, executive director of the Haitian Bridge Alliance also believes that human right obligations should be met to avoid mistreatment according to an interview with The Miami Herald. Jozef told The Miami Herald, “The administration should be working to close the Guantánamo Migrant Operations Center and to process all asylum seekers in a manner consistent with its human rights obligations.” Similarly to IRAP, The Haitian Bridge Alliance also advocates for humane immigration policies.

“The fact that it became a migrant detention center after previously being a terrorist detention center reflects this idea that immigrants bring in bad,” said Paola Rodriguez. “Or suggests Mexicans are coming in and bringing drugs and rapists, furthering the false sentiment that these immigrants are bad.”

It’s a common perception among many Americans, including Eileen McCann, a Collingswood, NJ resident.

“I don’t like to hear that anyone is living in inhuman conditions, but I am sure the conditions are better than where they came from,” said McCann. “They are entering the country illegally- therefore, in the eyes of the American government, they are considered criminals.”

Interviews/Sources:

Daphne Banino, Princeton University Junior

Paola Rodriguez, Princeton University Senior in the Neuroscience Department

Eileen McCann, Pedestrian on Nassau street from Collingswood, NJ

Report by IRAP 

https://refugeerights.org/news-resources/offshoring-human-rights-detention-of-refugees-at-guantanamo-bay

Article by The Latin Times 

https://www.latintimes.com/report-says-migrants-held-guantanamo-face-inhumane-conditions-dhs-denies-claims-560076

Article by The Miami Herald 

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article292791559.html

I found a lot of the articles this week incredibly engaging and particularly useful in connecting some of our past readings and clips to what was being discussed pertaining to Ukraine.

The first article I read, “Ukraine war: Putin has redrawn the world – but not the way he wanted” by BBC’s reporter Alan Little was interesting in the way that it went about calling out the people. When Little writes, “If these tactics are unfamiliar to you, you haven’t been paying attention” I found this quote so incredibly interesting because it calls out those who have not been made aware or are paying attention to what is going on around them. In a way, it’s calling out these people and making fun of them, calling out their naivety and asking them to wake up and take in what is going on. How much of what is going on is a byproduct of people not paying attention? Are people not paying attention to the route because things are only escalating and getting worse? If this is the case, should we ensure that we pay attention to make certain that things are not escalating and that money doesn’t continue to be laundered and used fraudulently?

At the end of the day, we can understand that many of these war trends or conflicts come down to wanting freedom from another entity and feeling as though they have to push back against governing bodies to achieve that freedom. This is seen especially in the case of Ukraine and Russia currently. However, upon further investigation, we can understand that history repeats itself the same way these conflicts between varying countries repeat themselves. In a sense, complete denomination or control over another country is achieved by stripping it of its identity or narrative. In the case of Ukraine, this is something that they are currently fearful of and believe is happening to them. The BBC article explicitly states, “Ukraine’s identity, too, will be strengthened further by the Ukraine’s have fought.” In order to sustain its identity, Ukraine needs to continuously push back and stand up for itself, fighting against Russian suppression.

“The Russian invasion of Ukraine has brought up an old question” was also incredibly engaging from the very beginning. I felt as thought the lead was incredibly engaging and immediately caught my attention by prompting “Is aggressive war legal?” This opening lead prompts an interesting question about the legality of war. Often, we think of war as just a byproduct of differences between two different countries and groups of people. However, when does the legal point of view interfere with the law? Can actual charges be made regarding the law? How are these boundaries set up, and how do we make sense of them in the context of defending ourselves in war?

“crimes against humanity, genocide and the aim to make war itself illegal, to hold leaders accountable for the crime of aggression, says Douglas.” This quote in itself makes me wonder how we would even go about making war itself illegal and how we would get other countries and people to agree to those standards. To a certain extent, it’s impossible, with the foundation of war being based on arguing and misunderstandings/disagreements. It seems silly to think that a comprehensive agreement could be made regarding the legality of war.

With the article titled, “How an Innovative Algorithm Helps Ukrainian Refugees Find New Homes”by Brian Zumhagen focusing primarily on some of the new systems in place to prioritize the preferences of migrants my attention automatically connected this reading to some of our previous readings.

With established systems in place, like the ones that Max and Yuna utilized to resettle, migrant stationing can be streamlined into a much faster process that makes things easier for both the migrants and the host country. In addition, having these set programs and foundational structures in place before migrants come over can alleviate the stress placed on systems that might be full or abundant with too many people. This technological process and form-filling process make me think of the influx of migrants that New York is experiencing. Especially when thinking about the bus route episodes and content we read and watched last class, I am left wondering if some of these programs are already in place to help alleviate the stress of those coming over or if they are in the process of developing systems to make processing migrants easier.

Another massive part of RUTH is the idea of transparency in this process. Often, I feel it is easy to look at just how efficient a process like this will make things. However, the idea of transparency and ensuring that migrants can be honest and effectively communicate everything that they need in their designated forms is also huge in ensuring primitive safety measures and long-lasting stations for these migrants upon arrival.

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.

I found many interesting takeaways from this week’s readings and videos.

Admitting my naivety, I am unfamiliar with many immigration policies issued by the United States. With this being said, I was particularly intrigued that Biden’s administration had kept Trump’s Title 42 deportation policy intact. Given my unfamiliarity with either candidate’s stance on immigration or action during each campaign, I found it interesting that Biden kept Trump’s policy until the courts disregarded it. I found this interesting because it appeared to make stances on immigration less black and white than we typically think of political issues. I also found the video’s take on Biden’sduality of the immigration issue interesting. Biden’s somewhat strict and humane approach to the issue of immigration introduces the idea of negotiation and compromise between political parties and specific stances on immigration issues.

I found the article titled, “Trump promises to deport all undocumented immigrants, resurrecting a 1950s strategy − but it didn’t work then and is less likely to do so now” particularly frightening. The beginning of the article discussing Trump’s desire to “carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history” was particularly disturbing to read, given the bluntness and lack of explanation. I feel as though the article painted an accurate description of how strongly Trump takes the immigration issue and stressed just how strong of pillar immigration is in Trump’s campaign. I found the article’s description of the “Operation Wetback” movement somewhat contradictory to what Trump desired to accomplish with his immigration plans despite him using “Operation Wetback” as some inspiration. One of the biggest contradictories that particularly stood out was that one fundamental idea “was not to remove Mexican immigrants but rather to frighten U.S. farmers, especially in Texas, into hiring them legally.” The rationale behind frightening U.S. farmers to offer legal positions rather than to deport immigrants immediately seemed to entirely dispute Trump’s seemingly blunt claims of only working towards deportation.

Something I found particularly striking from the video, Fear & Hope: What’s It Take to Make Sanctuary Real? [NYC Immigration Stories] was the authenticity behind the immigrants taking the bus from Texas to New York City. It was incredibly emotional seeing and hearing the story of the immigrant mother who was separated from her son for three months and had her husband deported back to Ecuador. Hearing this personal account and seeing the people behind it made me think about my own family and how hard being separated for months on end without knowing when I would be able to see them next. It also emphasized the humanness behind these immigrants. In addition to that scene in the video, they are like any other human. I also found the scene with the protestors outside the Roosevelt Hotel incredibly compelling. Seeing the pure anger and unrest of protestors reinforced the profound controversy this issue has prompted for sanctuary cities in particular.  Despite being humans and only looking for better opportunities, immigrants coming into these cities are under consistent fire from protestors. This reality makes people like Power Malu, the founder of Artists, Athletes, and Activists,  even more significant in situations like New York. Boarding the bus in the video and welcoming these immigrants to New York was a comforting scene, given the treacherous journey so many had gone on to get there. Reintroducing hope and comfort, Malu appeared to act as a bridge to New York.

One of the last articles I would like to comment on is the New Yorker piece titled What’s Behind Joe Biden’s Harsh New Executive Order on Immigration by Johnathan Blitzer. It outlined Joe Biden’s stance and actions on immigration well. It also prompted a particularly engaging question at the end of the piece that made me think about why Biden might desire to bring attention to the Immigration issue despite seeming to mitigate it well.  “Why did Biden decide to issue a proclamation reasserting that there was a crisis when he’d actually been managing to keep it at bay?” It makes me think that Biden may desire attention to his current work on immigration to help promote the excellent work that he has been doing. Suppose a political candidate is being successful at what they are working on. In that case, I see no reason why they wouldn’t want to bring attention to the work that they are doing and bring eyes back to an issue that is being addressed adequately at the moment.

Mathew  Longo’s The Picnic: An Escape to Freedom and the Collapse of the Iron Curtain detailed various interactions between parties and countries. Throughout Longo’s work, how he described the politics and social constructs of these multiple countries was incredibly endearing. I especially found it interesting when he told the Hungarian democratic forum political parties while in communist Hungary. After the Iron Curtain and Hungary’s disrepair, Longo’s interactions between Habsburg and Hungary provided insight into the extent of border conversations and how Habsburg went about visions of a borderless Europe.

I found a few quotes from the Mathew Longo reading especially compelling; one of the very first quotes, “history cannot speak for itself, it must be given a voice,” especially resonated with how I think about how journalism plays a crucial role in the retelling of history and the retelling of historical events. Through writing, history and specific policies, social constructs, and international developments can be given a voice that implements a way of higher thinking and higher attention. I think some details highlighting and emphasizing how difficult it is to make political change in the Michael Longo reading also stood out and helped shape my understanding when going about some of the Jessica Goudeu readings reviewing US immigration policy. I think that the emphasis Mathew Longo placed on the Pan-European Picnic throughout his chapters crafted an understanding that great communication, time, and effort go into making political change or even attempting it.

Moving onto the Jessica Goudeu readings, you outlined important information that helped me better understand the Longo readings after the second reflection. To better understand the past, revisiting information helps craft better understandings and perspectives on a more significant level. Using personal narrative and historical and political context throughout her writing, I felt that the Goudeau readings developed precise levels of understanding through explicit details that helped make policies understandable.

The John Mcfee reading was also fascinating in a journalistic context and helped revamp/refresh my journalism mindset after a Summer of straying away from journalistic practices. After taking Professor Joe Stephen’s course last semester and learning about ledes and nut graphs, revisiting these critical journalism practices through the lens of John Mcfee was incredibly beneficial. I enjoyed how he describes and emphasizes the various ways to go about different ledes and how they can evolve throughout the writing process. For me, he balanced both taking the stress away from immediately getting the lede right and ensuring that it is proper at the beginning of the writing process and understanding that the right lede will develop over time. McFee also makes it explicit just how vital the lede is while setting the proper tone for a piece.

Some questions I have after these readings is how to balance both storytelling and information telling when going about non-fiction writing? How do you ensure that your writing is factual and informative, without sacrificing narrative and the story’s appeal to the reader through explicit detail and empathetic/realistic interviews?