1. As generations go by and progress, the definitions of words constantly take on new meanings. One word in particular that has taken on a different denotation is refugee. The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees presented its own connotations. The 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Immigrants, altered the definition of the 1951 convention. Now today we are fed a completely distinct definition and set of laws.

During WW2 states and countries held on to strict disciplines and guidelines, which in return had a massive effect on immigration laws. At the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, there were a number of points broken down. The convention mainly explained who was considered a refugee. According to the convention, the definition of s refugee is “someone who is unwilling or unable to return to their country of origin owning to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.” Those not included in the definition are people who have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity.

1.In the near future, what will be the next set of laws for immigration?

2. How similar or different will immigrants be viewed in society, in the next 10-15 years?
4/5

For the past 10-15+ years, immigrant deterrence programs have been put in place by U.S., Australian, and Norwegian governments. One of their primary objectives is to eliminate the amount of illegal immigrants crossing their borders. Each government’s deterrence campaigns have a vast impact on the public perception of immigrants. Watching “No Way”, “Stricter Asylum Regulation in Norway”, and “Know the Facts”, gave me further insight on just how cruel governments can be. After reading Professor Bishop’s, “An International Analysis of Governmental Media Campaigns to Deter Asylum Seekers, I feel there is more to add to the discussion.

Professor Bishops read gave me insight on specifically how far government sponsored programs go, to ensure less immigrants are admitted into their countries. According to the second paragraph, first page, “Families arriving at the southern border of the United States are routinely separated from each other  and held in detention centers with too little food and inadequate medical care.” The same practice is prevalent in countries like Australia and Norway. Places such as these also deny illegal immigrants jobs and social security, making it merely impossible for them to survive in their new environment.

Although various tactics are implemented, the number of immigrants fleeing to different countries continues to increase. The three deterrence campaign videos as well as reading the passage, compliment each other in the message governments send to immigrants. These campaigns are narrated in a way that attempts to create fear, in hopes that immigrants might reconsider crossing their borders. They state negative connotations such as “it isn’t safe to come here,” there are smugglers here,” there is no place for you here,” etc…

Along with the media propaganda, there is more to the agenda than reducing immigration. By keeping immigrants out of country borders, governments are able to create free labor systems, from inmates. Many jobs, especially in the U.S., are occupied by immigrants; who essentially work for less money than the average American. Removing most of the immigrants, result in occupations that need to be filled. Many companies are now turning to private owned jails who facilitate free labor or labor with very little compensation. That means less money companies have to spend on employees, and more money in the executives’ pockets.

It is safe to say that government organizations who push for immigrant deportation, only care about their own self interests. They will go to any extreme to ensure the removal of as many immigrants as possible. The contradiction to this motive is that immigrants are the ones who build and establish almost if not all major territories. They bring with them customs and traditions that are adopted by the nations they flee to. In return, these governments show immigrants little to no respect. Let that sink in.

Questions:

1. When is the world court going to step in and regulate change to these unfair governmental policies?
2.If all immigrants were deported back to their homelands, what would happen to industrialized cites in the next couple of years?

5/5

The Until recent, the topic of immigration never crossed my mind on a broad ethical scale. After watching Caitlin Dickerson’s “Baby Constantin”, listening to “A House Divided by Immigration Status”, National Public Radio, and reading Laura Bush’s op-ed “Separating Children…Breaks my heart, I’m able to grasp the trauma of being separated from family. Hearing and reading each narrated account from a personal point of view gave me the feeling of empathy. The government must come up with a greater solution, than the one currently implemented. No family deserves to be separated from each other, due to immigration status.

The stories, podcasts, and videos I’ve watched for this class have educated me immensely, on immigration and the effects they present. From my family, I don’t have much knowledge of immigration. The only facts given to me from my maternal side was that my great grandmother was a native indigenous woman who migrated from Alabama to Pennsylvania. In doing so, she pursued a better life for herself as well as her five children.

Former first lady Laura Bush’s op-ed,“Separating Children…Breaks my heart, contains some very crucial points. The story reveals that our culture (U.S culture), has a history of being generous to other nations. However, we also have a history of discrimination, that is currently being repeated.  Bush offers the example of the Japanese concentration camps forced by Americans, to those who weren’t citizens, as a similar occurrence with the “zero-tolerance” immigration law. We should be advocating for families to be together, as opposed to apart. She states something in the early part of the op-ed that should be agreeable to most. “…this zero-tolerance policy is cruel. It is immoral and it breaks my heart.”

Caitlin Dickerson’s “Baby Constantin”, struck a nerve in me. It saddened me deeply to learn that a new born baby was separated from his mother and father at just 4 months old. Baby Constantin was held in foster care for 5 months before finally being united with his family. This particular story has a larger effect, due to the fact that the main character is a baby. It creates a vulnerability in the viewer, when watching. Especially in those who have children of their own or take care of children. “Baby Constantin”, is relatable to almost everyone, on a moral level, regardless of race, culture, or religion.

Of the many children how are separated from their families, How many of them are actually united with their families again?

Will congress pass a law that is more lenient toward immigration, in the near future?

Grade 4/5

 

The very controversial government agency, ICE, has damaged many immigrant families across the United States, by separation, often times permanently. Both Immigration Nation : Episode 1 (Netflix.com), and Think You Know Ice (ledger-enquirer.com) highlight the daily job operations of ICE, and the extreme impact they have on a global level. However, the Netflix series Immigration Nation captures the defensive side of ICE Police. The depictions of  their actions and justifications, adding further emotion to the series. It also grants the audience more than one perspective.

Immigration Nation: Episode 1 grasped my undivided attention from beginning to end. Each scene brings forth a narration of each character presented and compels us, the viewers, with the horrors of being detained by ICE, and deported back to their home countries. The background music during this episode is a kin to that of other crime shows, such as 48 Hours, 20/20, etc. A stand out scene during episode 1 is around 10:10, ICE Operation Day 2: Keep Safe, one of the officers describes his job as a great one that offers stable income. He also states that he is used to being called names such as “Nazi”. The first question that popped into my brain was, how can a person lack morals so much they would be suffice with breaking families apart for a living? I guess for some individuals, a price tag is all it takes.

Another pivotal scene from this episode is 17:34. ICE searches a family’s home early on the morning, and ends up detaining them all. They are referred to as collaterals. The collaterals are extra immigrants the officers weren’t looking for in particular, but ended up being searched and arrested, just for being at the same location as the intended target. Efran, ICE Fugitive Operations officer, drives one of the illegal immigrants to the police station. On their way to the station, the gentleman asks him a question that stood out. At 22:13 he asks Efran, “Were you born here?”. Efran replies, “ It’s really…irrelevant…at this point. You could feel the regret and pain as he responds. From observing Efran, you can tell he himself comes from an immigrant family.

Think you know ICE, captures the very cruelty that ICE as an agency embodies. From the melancholy music, to the illustrations, the viewer is able to understand the lack of Ethics ICE has. One is also able to see the many people oppose and protest against such negativity. The whole world comprehends the morally unjust tactics, yet our government seems to not care at all. Those of us who do care can only bring further awareness to this unfortunate reality, and hope for the best in the future.

Questions:
1.How far will one go just to “do their job”?

2. What exactly made President Trump reverse the Immigration Law?

Personal Rating: 5/5