We Apologize but You Need To Go

Who: Levine, M., & Sands, G. (2015, December 24). Feds Plan Sweep of Undocumented Immigrants Still in US Despite Orders to Leave. Retrieved January 2, 2016, from http://abcnews.go.com/US/feds-plan-sweep-undocumented-immigrants-us-orders-leave/story?id=35941118

What: This article discusses the removal of undocumented immigrants from the United States ordered by a federal judge due to an increase in illegal border crossings. In doing so, the Department of Homeland Security is sending a message to illegal immigrants, mainly Central Americans, that the United States does not condone illegal entrance to the country and that there are consequences for the action no matter the reason that led to the move.

Why: I chose this article because I felt it went well with the required reading for inclusion and exclusion. “Macedonia migrants: hundreds rush border” discusses how Macedonia and Greece are refusing entry to migrants who are trying to reach other European Nations because they lack the resources to deal with such an influx. This is not the case with the United States of America. The government is gathering and sending away migrants to send a message of “Don’t come”. At first it were “individuals who pose a threat to national security, public safety and border security” (Levine and Sands) leaving a blind eye to others that do not fit this description, but now it has extended to families “who have received a final order of removal on or after January 1, 2014″ (Levine and Sands). This extension to families was the result of an increase in illegal border crossing and in televising the removal of said families the government hopes it will deter more illegal crossing.

How: While reading this article I felt a little bit of sympathy for the families that are being deported but not enough to think that the Department of Homeland security is doing the wrong thing. The American Immigrantion Association opposes this nationwide sweep saying “the government would be going after ““perhaps the most vulnerable population,”” comprised of mothers and children who came to the United States looking to escape environments filled with domestic abuse, rape, and even murder” (Levine and Sands). Though this may be true, if the immigrants went through the proper channels they would not be in the position to be removed and in coming here illegally they forfeit their chances of asylum or other relief. I strongly feel if you want entry into the United States, or any country for that matter, you need to do it properly for they have their laws for a reason.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Feeling Excluded Can Happen to Anyone

Sastry, Anjuli. “People Of Color With Albinism Ask: Where Do I Belong?”. NPR.org. N.p., 2015. Web. 28 Dec. 2015.
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/12/07/457147952/people-of-color-with-albinism-ask-where-do-i-belong

This article talks about two different people living / growing up with albinism. Albinism is “a rare genetic expression that leads to little or no melanin production.” In other words, it is a lack of pigment and the hairs appears white no matter the race. One women named Natalie Devora talked about how growing up she never really felt a part of the family considering the face that it was an African-American family; it also talks about how Devora has a daughter who is also African -American and how she has notices how different she is treated or looked at automatically because of her skin color, “Even though someone may know that I am black as they are, there is still an assumption that I’m white,” she says. “Or that my blackness is not the same as theirs based on my skin color. Which means I would have access to greater privilege. Which honestly, in some cases, is true.”” Then this article talks about the National Organization for Albinism and Hypo-pigmentation (NOAH), which was founded in 1982 and how they hold annual meetings for anyone that wants to attend. The second woman Brandi Green didn’t hear about Noah until her college years. Growing up her nor her parents didn’t know much about her condition nor did they talk about Brandi was just told that she had white people in her family long time ago. After finding out about NOAH it became a huge part in her life where she left like she finally fit in somewhere. I picked this article because I thinks it goes great with exclusion and it an example that doesn’t necessarily have to go with just what country you are from. In the article The Sociology of Social Inclusion by Dan Allman it is stated “For Leary et al. (1995), an individual’s sociometer is managed through self-esteem where social inclusion and exclusion are used as mechanisms to monitor the well-being of an individual or group’s social relations. These authors use the sociometer to underscore pain overlap theory by suggesting that self-esteem is a kind of inclusion detector that meters changes in the inclusionary or exclusionary positioning of individuals. From this perspective, it would be this need for detection that ultimately drives individuals to maximize their quest for inclusion while minimizing the possibility of exclusion” (Allman). With this quote an example I can think of is how NOAH was created and how it was created to help people that feel left out not feel left out anymore by gathering together with other people with albinism. As I read this source I didn’t know how much of an identity crisis a person can go through, and how many people actually live with albinism. This article shows that one does not need to be from another country to feel left out or even be treated differently. This article makes me think about what other condition make people feel excluded from the rest of use and how many people are afraid to speak up about it.

Different War, Different Status

Nelson, Soraya Sarhaddi. (2015, December 25) Struggling To Absorb Asylum-Seekers, Germany Steps Up Deportations. NPR News. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/12/25/461025450/struggling-to-absorb-asylum-seekers-germany-steps-up-deportations

This article brings to light the discrepancy  between the German government’s words and what they’re actually doing.  Germany’s Chancellor Merkel, previously stated that they would do everything within their power to help those running from war torn countries.  Earlier this month however, Merkel held a conference with her Afghan counterpart where she announced that although they are helping out refugees, they would not be accept all Afghan’s as refugees and that they would have to deport them. “Economic reasons don’t qualify for Asylum,” Merkel. The probable reasoning behind this is that they are unable to handle the current influx coming in from a multitude of conflicts.  Seeing as they are already providing manpower in Afghanistan it would seem counter productive to double their efforts by helping them to move out of Afghanistan.  Instead they seem to say that Afghanistan need these individuals given that they are usually the young and educated.  But some Afghans argue that they have lost everything in their country and their is nothing to go back to.

I chose this source because of its contradicting title.  Germany is a well known humanitarian and major economic power in the EU, so I was not surprised at all that they were absorbing asylum seekers.  But the second bit, the “stepping up to deportations” made it interesting.  Why would they send Syrian refugees back to a, in all intents and purposes, a failed state?  A place, that if returned to, would force them to choose a side.  A side in which they may have no believe in but have to abide by because that is where they are geographically positioned.  Once I read the article their policy made sense.  As I understood it, they cannot afford to take all these refugees so they have to be more selective on who they give the refugee status to.  So they decide to kick out the Afghans.  It’s the politically astute move here.  Syria is in the forefront of the media and their refugees, so they can keep catering to them and keep up their world image.  And in case the German people start complaining or grumbling, they can say look we are not taking Afghans in.  Then Germany can point out that the reason is that Afghanistan needs its people plus their ground troops are doing such a great job and the money spent in Afghanistan was not a waste.  In this article the Afghans are noted as asylum seekers.  It’s interesting how a government entity can refute your reality and deem you as an economic migrant.  As Ruz (2015) quoted in her article that the 1951 Refugee Convention says a refugee “is any person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his/her nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country”.  It’s a bad situation, and its demoralizing that one of the biggest European powers is deporting them when in their own eyes they are leaving Afghanistan because they fear for their lives.  Anyways, Germany needs to stop this bleeding heart syndrome they have going.  In my short lived experience in Germany, non-western migrants did not seem welcomed or the migrants self excluded themselves.  But their is a definite divide Germany must address if they will effectively integrate refugees into their country.

My reaction to the whole ordeal was that it makes sense to kick out Afghans.  To perform triage on refugees is a common thing to do and now their just taking it a step forward and actually deporting them.  Towards the end of the article it mentions something along the lines that deportation falls to the responsibility of the states and not the federal government.  I would like to know how exactly it falls on them.  Are the states responsible for tracking refugees withing their borders and then report them to a deportation authority?  Or does each state have their own customs and border patrols?  I’d like to know how the states feel about Merkel’s plans and if they are even willing to follow it.  In some cases, although the central government pressures the states, the states are able to push off their responsibility by some bureaucratic voodoo.

 

Meaning Of The Names

“Migrants, Refugees and Asylum Seekers: What’s the Difference?” The Guardian. Ed. Alan Travis. 28 Aug. 2015. Web. 26 Dec. 2015. <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/28/migrants-refugees-and-asylum-seekers-whats-the-difference&gt;.
The article goes back to the true meaning behind the labels we place on these people. Maybe somehow, along the way, we have had lost the real context of the names and confused people with wrong meanings. For one,  a migrant is someone who moves from one place to another in order to live in another country for more than a year. It differs from a refugee who who has fled conflict and who is rin need of protection because it is too dangerous for them to return to their home countries. Asylum Seeker is a different story and one I had just heard of while researching this. Asylum Seekers are refugees just waiting to get their claims processed.
I chose this to educate myself a little more about the topic that was presented. What exactly were refugees and was the name a proper one given. All my life i feel as if i heard the name immigrant much more. My misunderstanding was not knowing their was a difference between the two. My research showed the process, the simple little facts to access the type of names we can give people. Its more informative than anything else but its a good basic base to understanding the names of people going through these moves. In the blog reading , Alexander Betts, director of the Refugee Studies Centre at Oxford University says
“Online searches for migrant are at their highest since Google started collating this information in 2004. And in the past month (to 25 August using the Nexis database), the most commonly used term in UK national newspapers (excluding the Times, the Sun and the Financial Times) was migrant – with 2,541 instances. This was twice as popular as the next most frequently used word, refugee.”
So, here I found I wasn’t the only one curious and with a not so busy google search engine.My research only jump started my curiosity and led me to even more articles of the name given to several types of people with several types of situations. I wasn’t alone and found comments section filled with just as curious readers who were broadening their minds just as I was. I learned that there is a giant difference between Migrant and Refugees and Asylum Seekers was another words added to my growing vocabulary. Asylum Seekers was a key interest of mine, because I had always heard the word refugee and migrant but Asylum Seekers was all new and just ready to be explored. Even if the name is quite different than Refugee, the two aren’t that much different and just a waiting response of approval can change that. Asylum Seekers, to me, seem to be the ones seeking for the title of refugee. Seeking a title that holds hope for them and their families.

How is this Migrant crisis different?

This migrant crisis is different from all others – BBC News. (n.d.). Retrieved December 28, 2015, from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-35091772

This article starts with a summary of the other migrant crisis that have occurred over the years. Explaining the significance of them and how they happened. For example, after the second world war many Germans were forced out of their homes. During the Vietnam war many of Vietnamese fled from the American bombings. Time and time again refugees were trying to find asylum in other countries, so the question the author raises is; why is this one different? He states the biggest difference is that European societies are changing very fast due to immigration, and it is causing an identity crisis.

I chose this source because I believe that the effect that immigration is having in Europe is a perfect example of inclusion and exclusion. These refugees are suffering from a form of exclusion. Feeling threatened in their countries they are seeking asylum in new countries. “As reflected by MacDonald and Leary (2005), among our less developed ancestors, both physical and social pain were functional in that they steered kin and other social groups from environmental and other threats, reorienting them in the direction of helpful others. As such, the social pain of exclusion was seen to have evolved as a means of responding to danger.” Quoted from Dan Allman’s The Sociology of Social Inclusion. Allowing these refugees to stay is a prime example of inclusion. A group of people working together for the greater good and advancement of our well-being. However, in doing so it seems that another form of exclusion has presented itself. Europe has never had large groups of migrants coming in from the outside before. This is presenting itself as an identity crisis in some parts of Europe, which is creating barriers between the refugees.

As I read this I was mostly intrigued on how having such a large group of immigrants might effect the one’s already living in that area. In a situation such as this most people are mainly focused on the immigrants lives and what they are experiencing. I thought it was interesting to explore the other side of the spectrum. A question that this raised with me is what negative effects are these refugees having on people, and what can be done to break down these barriers and bridge the gap for a more harmonious community?

Changing a name does not change an attitude!

Doing just fine. The Economist (2015, December 19). Retrieved December 23, 2015, from http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21684143-how-muslim-refugees-bosnia-transformed-corner-midwest-doing-just-fine

This article provides the possibility of a different perspective on the negative connotations associated with the terminology used to describe migrating/immigrating individuals or groups.  While acknowledging the challenges such individuals and/or groups experience the overall purpose of the article is to demonstrate that assimilation is possible and, when achieved, rewarding.  The label or name given to these people is not nearly as important to the overall scheme of things so much as the end result – inclusion or exclusion.  In general, anything different is first looked upon with askance, doubt, possibly even fear, anger, or hate.  This article demonstrates what I have always felt and been raised to believe: it is not the name that is used that is of primary importance; it is the emotion and purpose behind the name.

I chose this source because I wanted to find something that resonated more truly to how I felt about this issue.  I wanted something that would validate my own label(s) and definition(s) of people that I see more as explorers.  What first captured my attention, and was perhaps the most powerful message of the article, was the photograph leading into the article of the young woman proudly, happily, waving the banner identifying her as having been a refugee.  It immediately spoke to me of the temporary situation most of these people should be in.  Moving from one geographical location to another should offer hope or opportunity.  It would seem that, according to the definition provided by the 1951 Refugee Convention (Ruz, BBC News Magazine), refugee is the best, most politically correct term in use today.  But this article provides more than just positive imagery to prop against the negative tone of the terminology used when addressing issues dealing with immigrating / migrating peoples.  It also provided an example of part of what I think Allman (2013) was attempting to explain about the dichotomy of social inclusion / exclusion when he referenced Fredericks:

Fredericks (2010) suggested that belongingness as experienced in everyday relations constructs the kinds of sentiments on which societies of exclusion (and inclusion) are based. Referencing the work of De Certeau (1984), Fredericks makes the case for the importance of the everydayness of belonging and attachment, and the memory and tradition it reinforces as means of appropriation and territorialization.

In the article the Bosnian refugees (the society of exclusion in this case) establish a territorial niche or an ethnic enclave (the society of inclusion in this case) where they can practice their traditions and cultural values as a way of developing a sense of belonging and attachment and creating a real sense of everydayness.

As I read this article I was left mostly with a sense of resignation.  Evolution, genetics, and basic instincts have turned us in to a species of predators (We are at the top of the food chain for a reason).  All of the articles and information I found led to a conclusion that rarely is the “new” accepted by the “old” without first having earned that acceptance through sacrifices, hard work, conquest and/or humility.  It is these efforts and the merits those efforts earn that gain acceptance.  In the end the name or label was not even really important.  As this article demonstrated this issue of immigration/migration is not new!  Yet, often people work it out and a new hierarchy is established.  One of the things that I was left pondering though is what is different this time?  Why such widespread violence?  Even in the article it stated the successful establishment of the Bosnian refugees in St. Louis took up to two – three years.  Is it the location of the problem?  Are nations from that part of the world unable to deal with this?  According to BBC World News (21 August 2015) public officials are claiming just that.

Syrian Refugees Forced to Return to War Zone

Knell, Yolande. “Desperate Syrian Refugees Return to War Zone – BBC News.” BBC News. N.p., 12 Oct. 2015. Web. 20 Dec. 2015. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34504418&gt;.

What: As the war in Syria grows more and more, Syrian refugees are looking for a safer, easier place to live. At first Syrian refugees, with help from the United Nations, found refugee camps in Jordan that met their needs but now these camps are becoming expensive. Many of the Syrian refugees can no longer afford to live in Jordan because of the hardships they are facing. The United Nations has tried to help these refugees but donations for the cause have been slowly decline. Due to these hard times, Syrian refugees are beginning to leave Jordan and return home to Syria permanently.

Why: The United Nations refugee agency has been receiving donations from people all over the world to help the Syrian refugees. Lately, the amount of donations the United Nations refugee agency has been receiving has been much less than in the past.  This lack of funds leaves the Syrian refugees ultimately on their own when it comes to surviving in the Jordan refugee camps. When Syrian refugees migrate to Jordan they are not legally permitted to work nor do they receive free medical care. Although some refugees are able to work illegally for short amounts of time, they are not earning enough money to support their families. The lack of free medical care has only added another high expense that the Syrian refugees cannot afford. The refugees know there will be medical in Syria for free, this is one of the main factors encouraging Syrian refugees to return to Syria. The refugees are giving up and beginning to exclude themselves from the safe camps in Jordan to return to Syria. In the article, “Macedonia Migrants: Hundreds Rush Border,(BBC.com)” Macedonia immigrants are fighting to enter into the country of Greece, where they believe they will find a better life. These immigrants believe they will find a better life in Greece but are not guaranteed, just as the Syrian refugees. The Macedonian migrants are fighting for a place that could be equally as bad as the place they started. Unlike many Macedonian migrants, Syrian refugees made their way into a much safer area but found themselves poor and ended up returning home. It is interesting to compare the Syrian refugees arrival, struggle, and return home to Macedonian migrants’ battle to find a safer place.

How: Reading the article, “Desperate Syrian Refugees Return to War Zone (Knell), ” left me completely shocked. I was so surprised to read that Syrian refugees are struggling so severely that they rather living in war zone Syria has become. It was also very interesting to read that the United Nations has began to receive less donations to support these refugees. I also do not understand why Jordan is not allowing the Syrian refugees to work legally while they are there. The allowment of permitted working could solve many issues for the Syrian refugees. I would like to further research why Jordan is not allowing work permits, as well as, how well the Syrian refugees who have returned to Syria are doing.