A new survey by Pew Research Center shows that 85% of Latino voters view immigration as one of the top five issues “very important for their vote” in this year’s presidential election. Latino supporters of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris prioritize different issues.

Latino Trump supporters cite immigration as a top issue important to their vote (71%), following the economy (93%) and violent crime (73%). By contrast, only 51% of Latino Harris supporters cited immigration as important for their vote, the second lowest share among the ten issues included in the survey.

Wyatt Browne, who co-leads Princeton Students for Immigrant Empowerment, said he thinks Latino Trump supporters prioritize immigration due to the long-standing trope of immigrants being detrimental to the economy and “stealing what was meant to be yours.”

“Given the economic state of the country and the fact that a lot of people are feeling the squeeze on their finances and are feeling the squeeze on accessing social services,” he said. “Maybe for immigrant voters who did things ‘the right way’, that rhetoric holds weight.”

Browne said immigration policy is one of the many large differences between the two candidates, even with Harris’ backtracking on her previous stance of decriminalizing illegal border crossings. He also said it makes sense for voters to prioritize the economy and use it as a frame for their stances on immigration.

“I think immigration is really tightly intertwined with people’s vision of the economy,” he said. “That’s one way immigration will impact the election.”

Latino Harris supporters are also more likely than all Harris supporters to cite immigration as a top issue. Latino Harris supporters cite the economy (80%), health care (78%), and gun policy (66%) as the three top issues impacting their vote.

According to Pew Research Center, the results of the survey suggest that preferences of Latino voters in the 2024 presidential election look similar to their preferences in 2020. In 2024, 36.2 million Latinos are eligible to vote, a 4 million increase since 2020.

Patricia Fernández-Kelly, a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Migration and Development at Princeton University, said it is important to point out that the Pew survey asks about people’s views on the importance of immigration, but this captures two types of people. The first is people who believe immigration is too high and should be curtailed, and the second is people who see immigration as good for the country and are concerned about the curtailment of immigration.

“The poll results tell an important story, but it’s not the whole story,” she said.

Roberto Suro, a professor of journalism and public policy at University of Southern California, told NBC News that Harris’ overall polling with Latinos show she had “righted the ship.”

“Harris has made up most of the ground that Biden lost in the last year,” he said. “But it’s still very much a horse race and she’s not necessarily ahead.”

According to the Migration Policy Institute, the number of immigrants in the U.S. as well as their share of the U.S. population have both increased steadily since 1970. In addition, one in ten eligible voters in the US are naturalized citizens, according to Pew.

Overall support for immigration into the U.S. declined in recent years. A Gallup poll from July revealed that 55% of U.S. adults would like to see immigration to the U.S. decrease, the highest percentage since 2001. Although the desire for decreased immigration varies by party, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents are all more likely to favor less immigration. Only 16% of respondents want to see immigration increase, the lowest levels since 2009.

Fernández-Kelly said her research shows that this anti-immigration sentiment is present even among immigrant populations. The longer an immigrant stays in a country, the more they absorb some of the attitudes of the larger population.

“Older immigrants from anywhere, the longer they have resided in the country, the less sympathetic they are going to be towards more recently-arrived immigrants,” she said. “Even fairly recently arrived immigrants don’t want other immigrants, even from their own country.”

This anti-immigrant sentiment comes despite what she described as evidence of a positive effect of immigration on the economy.

“Immigrants tend to be looking for opportunities for employment,” she said. “Immigrants, even those who are undocumented, pay into the treasury of the United States.”

She also said the immigration process in the U.S. is complicated and lacks coordination, and will continue to be a point of contention.

“Immigration is important,” she said. “I highly doubt immigration is going to stop having salience in this country.”

On September 15, thousands of migrants stormed the wire fence border that divides Morocco from the Spanish territory Ceuta after incitement from a social media campaign. Moroccan security sent in reinforcements and rounded up all the migrants before they crossed.

Two days later, violence surged again as migrants returned to the border and started throwing stones at police. 60 were arrested, according to the AFP news agency, in a two-day operation. The charges include, “‘fabricating and disseminating false information on social media’ to encourage a collective illegal border crossing.”

The Spanish exclave Ceuta, on the coast of Morocco, has been struggling with mass waves of migrants attempting to cross the border to get into the European Union. It’s an autonomous city under Spanish rule and a major entry point for migrants. In August, Moroccan authorities blocked over 11, 300 attempts into Ceuta. As Moroccans, and many other African migrants, try to immigrate to the EU, they face another difficulty: high visa rejection rates.

A report from Henley & Partners (H&P), an immigration consulting agency, showed that African countries face some of the highest rejection rates for Schengen visas. The Schengen area comprises 29 countries in much of mainland Europe. The visa allows non-EU nationals to stay for 90 days when granted permission. The report stated that “Africa accounted for seven of the top ten countries with the highest Schengen visa rejection rates” and listed the factors that may have played a role in this. Firstly, if the consulates doubt the migrant will return to their country before the visa expires, their visa is likely to be denied. Immigrants seeking better economic opportunities in the EU are assumed to stay long term, making the overstay claim common grounds for a Schengen visa rejection.

Second, H&P claims that there’s a relationship between the passport power of the person’s country of origin and the visa rejection. African countries that score low on the gross national income per capita rankings, simultaneously score low on the Henley Passport Index (HPI) – a measure of the number of countries a passport can grant a person access to without a visa. They claim that a lower ranking on the index can be seen as a correlation to restricted social mobility opportunities in the person’s country of origin.  So for asylum applicants that are perceived as economic migrants, their chances of rejection increases.

Kenyan Princeton student, Charles Ochieng, shares his personal experience with the process saying, “The Greek consulate in Kenya was very inefficient. The Schengen visa is kind of complicated to get”. He shares his mother’s experience with the visa process, concluding that it can be difficult to go through the process from an African country.

Project Lead of Princeton’s Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination (LISD) Africa Program, Dr. Barbara Buckin, has this to say on potential social/racial biases involved in the decision-making process:

“It’s difficult to tell. Racism doesn’t fully explain why, for example, Nigerians are deported at much higher rates than Iraqis.” She explains that there’s a presumption that sub-Saharan African countries are safe since they’re not experiencing armed conflict. “I suppose you could say the system has a blind spot about economic deprivation — the desperation of a very poor person is not necessarily less worthy of our concern than the desperation of a persecuted minority.”

An AP News article on Morocco and Spain’s efforts to tackle illegal migrations reports on their signed deals to manage migration and boost Spanish investment in Morocco. The investment was an $873 million package to encourage Spanish firms to invest in Morocco and reinforce illegal immigration prevention in the Spanish exclave.

Tendekai Mawokomatanda, a Princeton student involved in the LISD Africa Program, shares his concerns about the potential instability that could arise in the country, saying, “While it’s good for [Spain’s] firms to invest in Morocco, [this] also allows for elitism, because those firms would tend to hire certain people within Morocco or invest in certain areas that are already nice.”

Dr. Buckin is also skeptical of this strategy as there isn’t enough reason to expect any economic plan aiming to boost development in Africa would lower immigration rates. She says that as more development lifts individuals into the middle class, more opportunities are available for migrants to finance their journeys North. “There is [also] a population boom, so even if the rate of emigration were to decline, there would still be far more migrants in absolute terms”.

Although the visa struggles remain, Moroccans stay determined as another social media campaign calls for an attempt to cross the border on Monday, September 30th.

Of this week’s readings, I found Alan Little’s BBC article particularly informative and enjoyed how analytical it was. As someone who loves studying the cold war, gaining a greater understanding through the creation of parallels between current events and key moments in Cold War history was interesting to read, for example noting that Ukrainians are fighting for Helsinki while Russia is more focused on a european order closer to what was established at Yalta, thus drawing back and showing the influence of previous agreements and conceptions of the right form of European organization. What was particularly skillful was the deliberate choice of historical events mentioned in the piece for a specific effect. For example, ending the article by highlighting the lesser known precarity of the Cuban Missile Crisis due to what was unknown by the public about Soviet military capabilities was a tactful reminder not only that often such military occurrences that seem so distant to us are far more precarious than may seem; and that there are always facts kept from the public which should make us think more critically when trying to make our own risk assessments of war based on what information is shown to us by mainstream media. 

The CSIS article, which highlighted how digital infrastructure has enabled Ukrainian refugees to access services more efficiently, was an enlightening read into the logistics of refugee reception. The use of biometric data, which I then went on to read in the case of Jordan and Syrian refugees seemed a more streamlined approach; the article detailed how often pins would be forgotten, bank cards would get lost, and when aiming to get access for such a great number of refugees, biometric data was a far more efficient approach for both parties. However, as always is the case with biometrics, issues of privacy are always a concern, especially as the UNHCR is required to give this information up to the host country; with the rise of the far right, I can see this being weaponized to the detriment of refugee rights.  In terms of digital tools, it was also a shock to me seeing the corporate charity and how it plays into not just refugee issues; Airbnb certainly helped in the case of Ukrainians, but when looking at their controversy with how they allowed listings from illegal settlements in the West Bank, so charitable efforts from companies never seem to be justice-oriented solutions as it comes across as always predicated on what is most popular politically, which can then later translate into profits. 

Beyond this, the ‘Tactical choreography’ in the NYT article made me think to the relationship of art and war. Aside from providing a lens into the humanity of individuals in conflict, I felt the articles highlighted the way art and creativity stems from instances of struggle, both as an emotional representation of violence and suffering but also in a more activist sense, beyond just being an individualized outlet for the artist. Art serves war; in propaganda, in depictions of popular culture, in photography and in literature, but at the same time it emerges from it. That is not to say war is a beneficial force in any way; the articles just further seemed to illustrate one of many instances of creative retaliation and response to moments of oppression and human struggle.

While I have spent so long reading about how technology is making life miserable for migrants – I’ll get to the ISD report later – it was heartening this week to read how technology is helping them.

RUTH was fascinating to learn about. An algorithm that can help match migrants with sponsors is a great feat. I’m also interested in learning more about “Annie MOORE” and matching migrants with employers. It seems that hopefully this system could be applied to migrants from other countries. Perhaps could this help ease the crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border? The systems discussed and those two articles certainly seem more effective and efficient than what we’ve read about in the past few weeks concerning those border crossings.

I greatly enjoyed reading the articles where I read/heard directly from journalists (like you!) covering the war. My favorite thing we read all week was from Lindsey Hilsum:

“We stayed at the Menorah Hotel in the Jewish Centre. As Putin claimed to be ‘de-Nazifying’ Ukraine, we thought it would be a bit of an own goal if it was hit by a rocket. They also served very good cheesecake.”

I like the bits of humor dispersed throughout this piece, like that quote or people making comments (not compliments) about her age and appearance. It adds humanity in the stories covering this inhumane war. I also appreciated the context given in the BBC piece, especially the stories from Russians that gave perspective to the kinds of sentiments they grew up with (e.g. “A chicken’s not really a bird; and Poland’s not really abroad,” or that Prague is “ours”). It was interesting to hear about how the misinformation had spread to them as children.

Speaking of misinformation (segway!), I really appreciated the ISD study – for my thesis purposes, not for the world. The fact that TikTok actively promotes those search terms, even the misspellings of phrases they block, is appalling.

I spoke with a fact-checker at PolitiFact who works with TikTok (as well as Meta) to fact-check their content (see my article from this week), and he told me that PolitiFact’s work can result in the post’s downgrade in the algorithm, but not necessarily being taken off. That doesn’t, though, explain why violent rhetoric was allowed to stay on according to the ISD. Additionally, the “invading army of sleeper cells” conspiracy theories and personal information of migrants should be taken down and posters punished.

The demonization and misinformation spread on social media platforms is evident from this study – and we’ve seen how it’s not the same level for Ukrainian refugees. It might be interesting to study different sets of migrants and see the differences in misinformation spread about them. In any case, it’s all bad, and I hope that there is a way to broaden the digital programs that allow the Ukrainians to escape the violence in their land to other migrants fleeing violence in their land.

The pervading theme of this week’s readings, for me, was the effect of technological advances for migration. On one hand, we see how online systems are facilitating the resettlement of Ukrainian refugees, and promise to possibly simplify refugee processes going forward. I’m honestly hesitant to wholeheartedly welcome this advance; I think, like the CSIS article says, that we sometimes imagine tech as something exterior to ourselves. We need to be abundantly aware of the way all technology is built by and entrenched in human biases and error, without just using it as a first-resort without criticism. I’m very happy to hear how many people it’s helped, and with the proper oversight I am hopeful, but I also don’t think it’s the only solution. The HIAS article immediately made me think of CBP One, the equivalent app for Southern border migrants, which has been critiqued for a long time (plagued with glitches at the start and of course hasn’t been as streamlined as the Ukrainian equivalent). Still, it could help in the future. 

At the same time, we see how TikTok perpetuates white supremacy and anti-immigrant rhetoric. I thought the study was fantastic at dissecting ways that TikTok fails. Far-right groups will continue to come up with new dog-whistles, but if explicit anti-immigrant content can be moderated, there’s less of a chance people who aren’t already in the community will fall into it. I wonder if that kind of effective censorship is possible on the internet? I was also wondering what “pipelines” lead into far-right internet communities? People don’t just reach those videos without reason (mostly), there have to be “adjacent” spheres that lead them there. In online fandoms where viewers become commenters and creators, community and identity get tied to ideological underpinnings. It’s scary to realize that some people may see these anti-immigrant circles as their “communities,” where if they change their opinion, they’re at risk of being socially ostracized. Especially since these communities have so much potential for cross-contamination, the internet is a place where kids (kids who don’t have great real social lives) can fall into these spheres, and become so quickly indoctrinated. It scares me. 

I was also very interested in Allan Little’s article in the BBC – particularly in his use of the phrase “paradigm shift.” He critiques “the West” for its inability to see Russia’s mounting threat, and I know I’m part of that. If “we” failed to see what Russia was or is, is that a media failure too? Even as he says that Russia’s war with Ukraine is world-changing, I have to acknowledge that I’ve never thought of it that way. From the US, sometimes it’s easy to ignore. How much responsibility does the media have to transmit the actual power, the emotion behind a war? Responsibility feels like an unproductive word, but it more generally just makes me conscious that without the physical experience of being in Ukraine, I will never fully understand the conflict through reading about it. How do you get across the weight of a war, or the changes in the world, without being ideological?

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

One in ten unaccompanied migrant children in Arizona say they were physically abused while in the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency’s custody since January of 2023, according to a September report by the non-profit Florence Project for Refugee and Migrant Rights

Based on a fifteen-month investigation and hundreds of individual interviews, the report also found that one in four of the interviewed unaccompanied minors say they were verbally abused. Many more report a lack of hygiene products, medical supplies, warm clothes, and food.

“Kids shouldn’t be held in inhumane conditions, subjected to abuse,” said Jane Liu, director of Policy and Litigation at the Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights. “There really is just very little accountability.” Her organization works with the Florence Project, part of a collective effort to bring visibility to the conditions unaccompanied immigrant children are held in.

Detention centers for unaccompanied minors have long been criticized, and the Florence Project’s report is the most recent update in a history of attempts at change, says Liu. “Every couple years we’ve been raising these issues . And nothing has been done.”

The Customs and Border Patrol agency was created in 2002 as a subsidiary of the DHS, explains Luis Coronado, history professor at the University of Arizona and member of the Binational Migration Institute. Before then, the paths of unaccompanied migrant children were determined by Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS).

“If you think things are bad now, it was horrendous back in the 80s and 90s,” said Liu about detention facilities. Litigation against the US government for its treatment of unaccompanied immigrant children started in 1985, with the Flores v. Reno case. It was dismissed in 1993 after a long legal battle.

Despite the case’s closure, public pressure persisted, and in 1997 the Clinton administration signed the landmark Flores Settlement, the nation’s first formalization of unaccompanied migrant children standards for care.

Since then, CBP has become responsible for unaccompanied migrant children after their apprehension. Updates in 2008 resulted in CBP’s promise to hold minors for no more than 72 hours (notably excluding “exigent circumstances”) at which point they should be transferred to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).

But the reality inside the facilities often differs harshly from CBP’s promises.

In 2019, the agency apprehended an all-time high of 76,136 unaccompanied immigrant children, prompting what CBP called a “crisis.”

Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School, reported that at CBP’s Clint Texas facility that year, children were being held for over a month, without access to showers or sufficient food.

Between September 2018 and May 2019, six migrant children died in government custody – the first deaths in a decade. Then in June of 2019, Trump administration lawyers appeared in court arguing that the government isn’t legally required to give unaccompanied immigrant minors toothbrushes, towels, or “sleep.”

Just a week later, the state of Texas was sued for the inhumane conditions in the facilities of Rio Grande Valley and El Paso.

The facilities promised to improve, but in 2023 Anadith Danay Reyes Alvarez, 8-years-old, died in Texas CBP custody. An independent investigation attributed the failure to “systemic weaknesses.”

Despite the fact that unaccompanied migrant children apprehensions have steadily declined since 2019, CBP was sued again in February of 2024, this time for their open air detention sites – transitory spaces which, they argued, didn’t fall under the purview of the Flores settlement.

CBP declined to comment about any previous suits or allegations against them, including the Florence Project’s most recent report.

Liu fears that there will be no improvements even after the Florence report documents on-going abuse, “kids will tell us about literal abuse that they’ve suffered. But they don’t want to raise complaints because they fear retaliation.” She said that as a result, most abuse goes unreported.

Even when unaccompanied minors do raise formal complaints, they often don’t know the names of the officers. “It’s a bit of a black box in there,” said Liu. CBP facilities are inaccessible for non-government agencies, so reports like that of the Florence Project can only be taken retroactively.

Speaking of CBP’s internal failings, Coronado said, “It’s not because they don’t want to pay attention, but because it’s very functional for them to not pay attention.” Holding individual officers accountable, he explained, threatens their system.

There are reports that CBP is internally investigating over 200 of their officers, but Liu said she wasn’t aware of any internal investigation. Regardless of any internal efforts, she didn’t think CBP had been making the necessary systematic changes.

“The bottom line is that the CBP facilities are really temporary holding facilities,” says Liu. “They’re not meant for anyone, to be honest.”

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.

When former President Trump stood on the debate stage and spread the baseless claim that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio were eating pets, Springfield Pastor Carl Ruby was in disbelief.

“My heart sank. I knew what was going to happen,” he told me.

What Ruby foresaw came true. After Trump’s September 10 debate comment came a deluge of bomb threats to local schools and businesses, as well as hate groups such as the Proud Boys descending onto the streets of Springfield. Migrants – who entered the country and settled in Springfield legally – feared for their lives as a direct result of the misinformation. Ruby, who is a senior pastor at Central Christian Church in Springfield and a long-time advocate for the town’s migrants, called it “complete chaos.”

“I told people my worst fear is that he mentions it at the debate. And he did. And from then on, it just took off,” Ruby said.

During the debate, Trump said, “In Springfield, they are eating the dogs. The people that came in, they are eating the cats. They’re eating – they are eating the pets of the people that live there.” The false claim that Trump made was parroted from his running mate, Ohio Senator J.D. Vance, who posted on X the previous day:

“Months ago, I raised the issue of Haitian illegal immigrants draining social services and generally causing chaos all over Springfield, Ohio. Reports now show that people have had their pets abducted and eaten by people who shouldn’t be in this country. Where is our border czar?”

The next morning, the morning of the debate, Vance posted again on X, admitted that “it’s possible, of course, that all of these rumors will turn out to be false.” But he still encouraged his followers to “keep the cat memes flowing.”

He later defended himself on CNN, saying, “If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do.”

PolitiFact fact checker Louis Jacobson says that immigration has been a highly-misinformed-about topic “since Trump came down that golden escalator” in 2015. But since the debate comment, the topic has “become a piece of centrality of misinformation in the campaign.” He says that PolitiFact has had to hire multiple fact-checkers that specialize in immigration since 2015, and a PolitiFact analysis of Trump’s lies shows that he the policy area he lies about the most is immigration.

The newest claims have been repeatedly debunked by journalists – including those at PolitiFact – in addition to the Republican mayor of Springfield and the Republican governor of Ohio. The Springfield woman behind an early Facebook post that claimed her neighbor’s cat might have been kidnapped and eaten by Haitian neighbors apologized to NBC News, saying, “It just exploded into something I didn’t mean to happen.” Another Springfield resident, Anna Kilgore, had filed a much-spread police report about Haitian neighbors stealing her cat – but when the Wall Street Journal talked to her, she said she found her cat, Miss Sassy, in her basement a few days later.

But the recantations and fact-checks didn’t matter. National figures from Senator Ted Cruz to Elon Musk listened to Vance and posted the false claims on social media, where it spread like wildfire. Posts about Springfield ranged from threats to AI images of Trump “saving” a duck and cat in a pond, with the caption, “Protect our ducks and kittens in Ohio!” – posted to X by the Republican House Judiciary Committee, an official government account.

While talking about misinformation, Jacobson quotes satirist Jonathan Swift: “Lies spread around the world while the truth gets its pants on.” He says that even though PolitiFact fact-checks claims like the Springfield story when it was still a social media post, that doesn’t stop it from going viral. This process is possible through an agreements with Meta and TikTok: when the social media company flags a post to PolitiFact, they research and fact-check the post, which is then downgraded in the algorithm and has a fact-check alert. Still, Jacobson says this is a flawed system that reflects Swift’s quote.

“It takes us time to get the fact check. Before we can finish, it’s already spread virally,” Jacobson said. “It’s not instantaneous. It takes time, there’s not much you can do about that.”

For the migrants and their advocates like Ruby, the misinformation and the fallout has them living on edge.

“I think there were a total of somewhere between 30 and 50 bomb threats,” Ruby said. “Schools canceled, hospitals closed, grocery stores closed. … Everyone was nervous. People are afraid. My family is very afraid. Some people have been afraid to come to church because of the publicity that I have had as a spokesman for the Haitians.”

The day after the debate, one anonymous Springfield Haitian migrant told The Haitian Times, “She [my niece] was scared [to go to school], but I told her to go, that God would protect.”

Another told The Haitian Times, “I’m going to have to move because this area is no longer good for me. I can’t even leave my house to go to Walmart. I’m anxious and scared.”

Ruby himself has been a target for hate and misinformation.

“I was accused of trafficking Haitians into town. I was accused of owning rental properties and making money off of them, all sorts of just bizarre, totally false things that just took off on social media,”  Ruby said. “I would get threats online saying Carl Ruby is a piece of sh*t who needs to be run out of town, or Carl Ruby is a coyote. I’m just not looking at their social media because it’s not really helpful for me to see.”

Still, Ruby says that with all of the hate, there has also been an outpouring of support from within Springfield and across the world.

“People have really rallied to [the migrants’] defense and people are welcoming them, telling them that they’re glad that they’re here,” Ruby recounted. “I expected lots and lots of angry phone calls and angry messages, and there have been a couple. But for every negative one, there’s been 100 positive ones.”

I found the CSIS article on the digitization of refugee crisis response very interesting, as it highlights how internet penetration and access to social media play a role in refugee response. Social media allows Ukrainian refugees to maintain communication with family and friends, and digital access also allows countries hosting refugees to respond to the influx more efficiently through digital platforms. However, these technologies also bring up concerns regarding privacy and protection, as well as concerns over digital exclusion or disparities resulting from the fact that some populations do not have the same ease of access of ability to utilize these technologies. I was not aware that many Ukrainians had a smartphone app (Diia) which functioned as a digital wallet for official documents and carries the same weight as their physical equivalents. A few questions come to mind as I read this piece. First, I wonder whether it is possible to use this same idea of official government documents in other contexts with high digital penetration to facilitate access to government services more broadly. Second, if this approach is applied to other contexts, I wonder how the digital governance environment can account for the fact that not all countries have the same level of rigor for privacy guidelines as the EU’s GDPR (and even with the GDPR, the article highlighted the near impossibility of digital privacy protections). Third, it would be interesting to observe how this landscape evolves as tools such as AI become more advanced and readily available (the article mentioned early cases of countries using AI to screen refugee applications).

Similarly, the HIAS program provides another example of an innovative approach leveraging technology to better integrate refugees into their host community by matching them to a group of volunteers. It also provides a more positive approach to using an algorithm in which the end results accommodates the refugees’ preferences, as opposed to the CSIS article which highlighted some of the potential dangers of AI such as reinforcing bias and discrimination because. Algorithms are trained on pre-existing data, which is often biased, and can further reinforce trends we would not want to see in crisis and humanitarian response. One potential role for journalists in this area is to focus on investigative pieces which dissect/unpack/criticize the algorithms being used for refugee crisis response to highlight the ways in which they are either helping or harming refugee communities.

I was also intrigued by the NYT articles on Ukrainian dancers and choreographers because it shows a different angle not often discussed in the context of migration and forced displacement: how artistic individuals contend with the reality of war and displacement as well as how experiences that are traumatic for the body can affect people differently depending on their experiences. I was struck by Ratmansky’s decision to incorporate a haunting image of the war into his work, and he acknowledged it feeling like forbidden territory. Various forms of artistic expression, including dance, are often seen as forms of joy, but it is also important to acknowledge and tell the stories of artists using their craft to express themes of war and displacement.