Month: October 2020

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees clearly defines a refugee as “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion”. This is a clear definition of who should be labeled a refugee, and those who are not included are those seeking economic freedom, work or better living conditions AKA migrants. The words used do matter when describing instances of migrations. I have been guilty of using the term “illegal” in my last blog post when that clearly was not the case. It feels as if the goal posts are forever moving when it comes to immigration policy.

This is further supported when comparing “Words matter” to the Justice Departments release on “use illegal aliens” not “undocumented”. On one hand we are told that people are not illegal and only actions are illegal, but then the justice department says that for continuity’s sake we should keep the language to name them as illegal aliens. I think this is a tactic to sway public opinion to either side of the argument. The base audience for “Words matter” will have their beliefs strengthened by the empowering message that actions are illegal, not people. While supporters of the justice department will see a governing body validate their stance on using the term “illegal aliens” to describe cases of human immigration. The 1951 convention clearly states what a refugee is which is helpful in keeping the terms separate, while laying out official guidelines relating to the status of refugees.

• Will there be a neutral decision on terminology for migrants?
• Does the general public care enough to search these terms and use them correctly?
• How does the misuse of terms perpetuate stereotypes?

4/5

My artifact originally appeared in the Star Tribune (largest newspaper in Minnesota) and was created by Steve Sack. Steve is a Pulitzer Prize winner in 2013, the same year this political cartoon was created. As my generation has come to age we’ve started paying more attention to politics and world issues. It’s worth noting that there have been immigration issues in the US long before President Trump was even a thought in our mind, as this clearly impossible path to citizenship cartoon was released in 2013.

This artifact’s importance lies in the strong imagery conveyed. There is not only a path to citizenship, but an impassible path TO the path to citizenship. While political cartoons are simplified versions of real issues, they do a great job of depicting the issue quickly for political discourse. Political cartoons have some irony and exaggeration in them, which is why they’re so effective and still widely used in physical media despite the introduction of technology. There is not literally a pit full of dangerous creatures, brick wall with barbed wire, quick sand, and land mines on the path to citizenship but there is POLITICS which is clearly states as well. This helps the viewers of the cartoon understand the struggles and hopelessness of being granted citizenship in the U.S.

Why are political cartoons so effective at drawing attention to policy and corruption? How does the media use these bite-sized images to further encourage political discord, and what is the line between thought provoking imaging and propaganda?

I plan to use the two short videos “No Way” and “Think you know ICE?” as thought provoking media artifacts from class. Although they are video formats, I believe the message still remains the same. They’re short, but pack a lot of information during their time which can be related to the single political cartoon I’ve chosen. These two videos also represent some of the “impassable obstacles” on the “path to the path to citizenship”.

 

When immigration opposers have done their part on home soil, they can take their fight to the source. Posting anti-immigration media in foreign countries can be an effective deterrent for would-be asylum seekers. With promises of punishment and hardship it would make those seeking a life abroad second guess their decision. In “An International Analysis of Governmental Media Campaigns to Deter Asylum Seekers” we learn of the many deterrent campaigns led by Norway, USA, and Australia. Mainly targeting asylum-seekers in Central America, the Middle East and even on the internet. The videos “Why risk your life?” and “You risk being returned” were posted by Norway to dissuade a growing number of seekers from coming, and highlighted the smugglers as being a main enemy. Norway was the only European country to use social media as a platform to send word that illegal crossings would not be allowed.

 

After viewing the videos “No Way” and “Stricter Asylum Regulations in Norway” it is clear that both countries are using visual media to dissuade illegal crossings by sea. Norway states that since 2014 over 10,000 lives have been lost trying to cross the Mediterranean; so why risk your savings and more importantly your life by trying to cross the sea into Norway? Norway makes it stance clear that those seeking jobs will not be permitted by illegal crossing, so why risk it? Australia uses similar language in “No Way” when referring to sea vessels arriving on Australian waters. They must defend their seas and no matter who you are, adults, children, skilled or un-skilled workers, you will not cross into Australia illegally and make it your home. The United States “Know the facts” video makes it clear that the border is overwhelmed with migrants. They try to dissuade additional migrants from South America by sending those who were detained back to their homes, which leads to oral messaging of “I’ve spent thousands of dollars to cross into America but I’m back where I am”. This is probably the greatest method of demotivation in my opinion.

 

It is clear that this is not a Presidential, nor solely an American issue. Other countries are facing the same human rights issues and can not keep up with, or care for all the asylum seekers they receive. Sarah Bishop cleverly references the fact that “Australia, Norway, and the United States all voted in favor of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Article 14 of the Declaration grants that “everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” The three nations are also all signatories on the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which extended protections originally established in the 1951 Refugee Convention by stipulating that nations should not penalize forced migrants for illegal entry or stay, regardless of where and when the migrants were forcibly displaced. Although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1967 Protocol are clear in this regard, the omission of information regarding the right to seek asylum in the Australian and U.S. deterrence campaigns obscures the reality that both nations approve and grant status to thousands of asylum seekers each year. Instead, they imply that this right does not exist.” This does a great job at picking apart their recent stance on illegal migrants.

 

Questions:

• • Seeing as these videos and instances from the US were pre-Trump, can we expect any changes for the better if the administration changes after the next election?
  • Is there really a solution here?

 

4/5

Migration is such a tough and tricky subject. People cannot be “illegal” but from an immigration standpoint the rules can be tricky. Young Americans’ future can be in jeopardy due to the legality of their residence in this country as illustrated in the soundbite “A house divided” on NPR. I believe the USA is a land of opportunity and if children are brought over without consent and have been living peacefully in the country they should get a pass. The end of the soundbite from NPR had a very powerful message regarding the siblings who’s future was uncertain, “..maybe they want their identity to be more than documented, undocumented and citizen.” There should be more to a person than their citizen status, and if they’re a functioning member of our society why shouldn’t we embrace them with open arms?

This gets complicated because where do lawmakers draw the line on immigration? I believe border security is important and necessary, but is riddled with flaws. Even former First Lady Laura Bush agrees and understands the importance of border security. The zero tolerance rule is cruel and I believe does more harm than good. Laura Bush states “These images are eerily reminiscent of the internment camps for U.S. citizens and noncitizens of Japanese descent during World War II, now considered to have been one of the most shameful episodes in U.S. history.” and I can’t help but agree. No matter what your politics are you should be empathetic and focused on people, not policy. It can be hard to decide between sticking to “the book” and doing what is morally right.  Laura Bush reveals some horror stories from the immigration system and provides a call to action not by condemning the people in charge, but by reminding us of the country values we were founded on and calling upon those within the government who she knows are kind and compassionate.

Personally my own family’s migration history is not talked about or idolized. I am third generation American and hearing my grandparents talk about their experiences here in America they have fond memories. America is seen as a land of opportunity for those who had none amongst old-timers. They had no choice but to come here and work hard for what they have, which is the same ideology that I have. There was some discrimination but my grandparents used to brush it off as unimportant, they put their head down and got to it. I had members of my family serve in the military and fight for the USA, and when I ask them what made them do it the response is generally “I will fight for the freedom I was given”. My family did not cross at the border, instead we came through Ellis Island. My family’s experience is not one that is highlighted by this week’s literature.

Questions:

If the administration changes in this year’s election, can we really expect immigration changes? What is the actual plan?

3.5/5 this one was tough for me personally. I also couldn’t get access to the NYT video.