CPR Spring 2019 (XVIII, 1)

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

ALSO INSIDE: Discourse on Sino-African Relations pg. 4 How Do You Solve a Problem Like Shamima? pg. 18 Brexit Interview with Professor Tim Bale pg. 22

SPRING 2019 Volume XVIII, No. 1

IMMIGRATION DETENTION— FOR UNITED STATES CITIZENS pg. 14

1

Masthead & Editor’s Note Editor-in-Chief Isabelle Harris Publisher Celine Bacha Senior Editors Jake Tibbetts Alex Siegal Hannah Wyatt Benjamin Sachs Kinza Haq Helen Sayegh Henry Feldman Jodi Lessner Akshiti Vats Copy Editors Sonia Mahajan Grace Protasiewicz Aryeh Hajibay-Piranesi Mary Zaradich Graphics/Arts Editor Antara Agarwal Social Media Director Anthony Cosentino Tech and Marketing Kerem Tuncer

Op-Ed Eric Scheuch Staff Writers Raya Tarawneh Sophia Houdaigui Ayse Yucesan Aja Johnson Antara Agarwal Pallavi Sreedhar Jasleen Chaggar Ramsay Eyre Ellie Hansen Rachel Barkin Sarah DeSouza Feven Negussie Feature Anthony Cosentino Staff Writers Kristha Jenvaiyavasjamai Kristen Akey Maria Castillo Stella Cavedon Devyani Goel Janine Nassar Diana Valcarcel Soler Stephanie Choi Katherine Malus

Podcast Producers Kristen Akey Hannah Wyatt

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this magazine belong to their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Columbia Political Review, of CIRCA, or of Columbia University.

If the beginning of 2019 has taught us anything, it’s that tumult is the new normal.

So tumultuous, in fact, that political realignments have forced changes even in an area we might expect to be stable: religion. This magazine features a story on each of the world’s three major religions. First, Josh Nacht takes a deep dive into the ever-closer relationship between Judaism and the Israeli government. On page 18, Jasleen Chaggar tackles the debate in Great Britain over Shamima Begum, a British citizen and former member of ISIS. Lastly, Katherine Malus discusses the implications of the Ukrainian schism in the Orthodox Church.

Domestically, immigration continues to be an engine of political unrest on both sides of the aisle. Sophia Houdaigui makes a student’s case for comprehensive immigration reform on page 24, while Maria Castillo discusses the alarmingly-common practice of ICE detaining United States citizens on page 14.

From an already-crowded 2020 Democratic primary field to Chinese investment in African economies, there’s plenty in this magazine to keep you informed on our changing world.

—Isabelle Harris, Editor-in-Chief

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW 4: The Discourse on Sino-African Relations

by Feven Negussie 7: Can a Woman of Color be our Next President? Numbers Do All the Talking.

by Aja Johnson 9: Israel: Theocracy or Democracy?

by Josh Nacht 14: Immigration Detention—for US Citizens

by Maria Castillo 18: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Shamima?

by Jasleen Chaggar

Published by CIRCA

Spring 2019 Volume XVIII, No. 1

20: ‘It’s Time to Tell Our Story’: Beto, Democrats, and Emotion in 2020

by Ellie Hansen 22: Very Sad and Very British: Brexit Interview with Professor Tim Bale

by Benjamin Sachs 24: The Case for Comprehensive Immigration Reform Starts Right Here at Columbia

by Sophia Houdaigui 26: The Ukrainian Schism: Why it Matters, Politically

By Katherine Malus

FEATURE

THE DISCOURSE ON SINOAFRICAN RELATIONS Feven Negussie

Despite the countless articles that have been written and the numerous studies that have been conducted on the subject, Sino-African relations are rarely mentioned in the general public dialogue. Especially now when China, under President Xi Jinping, is working to strengthen its position on the international platform, we can no longer ignore its growing geo-political influence, particularly in the African continent.

As China continues to expand its economy, it is simultaneously becoming more authoritative internally as well.

It is no secret that Chinese presence in Africa has been increasingly growing over the years, and the future implications of this expansion is still up for debate. What is startling, however, is the lack of discourse — especially among the general public and in academic spaces — about this steady, ongoing phenomenon. Numerous published accounts by scholars on international politics and on Sino-African relations have expressed their views online and sporadic discourses have tak-

en place on college campuses; nevertheless, frequent and critical conversations that such an event warrants are not trickling down to the general public and transpiring as often as they ought to.

The lack of ubiquitous discourse could be attributed to the the puzzling nature of the relationship between African countries and China. Most of the rhetoric that we hear comes from Sino-optimist African and Chinese leaders who essentially claim that the partnership is equally beneficial for both parties. Jacob Zuma, the former president of South Africa, stated in 2012, “We [Africans] are particularly pleased that in our relationship with China we are equals and that agreements entered into are for mutual gain.” President Paul Kagame of Rwanda delivered a similar message during the opening of the Summit of the Forum of China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC), “Africa is not a zero-sum game. Our growing ties with China do not come at anyone’s expense. Indeed, the gains are enjoyed by everyone who does business on our continent.” Similarly, the rhetoric from Chinese leaders regarding the partnership has been un-

surprisingly optimistic. Chinese premier Li Keqiang asserted in 2014, “China will forever be a reliable friend and true partner of the African people … China will not pursue a colonialist path or allow colonialism to reappear in Africa.” President Xi Jinping of China pronounced a similar statement at APEC CEO Summit, “Let me make this clear: the Belt and Road Initiative is an open platform for cooperation, it is guided by the principle of consultation and collaboration for shared benefits.

It’s not designed to serve any hidden geopolitical agenda.”

Sino-optimist statements such as these perhaps compel us to believe that the partnership is premised on a mutual understanding of reciprocal benefits for each partner without any latent geo-political agenda. It is precisely this public perception of Sino-African relations that enables us largely to ignore the subject.

China’s involvement with African countries goes decades back, but its recent heightened interest in the continent has rendered Africa as China’s leading ally in the global market.

Many factors contribute to China’s interest in the continent, and most stem from China’s

FEATURE

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // SPRING 2019 // 05

recognition of its emerging vorable economic ally for many deep-rooted involvement in market economies. China sees of its partners. This decision Africa include the extraction of nations with emerging market on the part of Chinese govern- resources in order to attain raw economies as potential pros- ment has been a chief issue for materials such as fuel and coal, pects for attaining high returns the US — a top critic of Chinese the expansion of its geopolitiin the near future, since they geopolitical influence — who cal influence through economhave a higher ic partnerchance of fastships, and the er economic “Frequent and critical conversations that such an augmentation growth.

China event warrants are not trickling down to the gener- of its already also senses no massive econneed to be en- al public and transpiring as often as they ought to.” omy by its intangled with vestments in the internal pothe emerging litical turmoil of the countries it has accused China of disregard- market economies. Its goals is doing business with; it often ing human rights violations on the continent are part of maintains a policy of non-inter- and failing to spread democra- its Belt and Road Initiative — ference, keeping relationships cy while benefiting economi- a signature project in which strictly on a business-to-busi- cally from its partnerships.

China spent approximately 1 ness basis and making it a faChina’s objectives from its trillion dollars in over 60 coun-

06 // SPRING 2019 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

FEATURE

tries to essentially, and ulti- debt to China, such as Zambia is entertaining the idea of exmately, remodel current global and Djibouti, and brazenly as- panding its presence in Africa trade, strengthen its economic serts that they’re on the brink presumably in the traditional ties, and assert its political in- of becoming “economic vassals neo-liberal order for reasons of fluence. In exchange, China is for China.” By painting China reasserting its global hegemooutsourcing its manufacturing as a predatory and colonizing ny — not for looking out for the to African countries and hir- force in Africa, Bolton has mo- best interests of African nations. ing mainly African workers for bilized both the president and And the Trump administration’s its projects. Nearly 75% of all party members to renew their hostile influence war with Chiworkers are local. Hearkening strategies for restoring U.S re- na is menacing and will usher back to an aforementioned lations with African countries. in some — if not many — implistatement on Sino-optimism President Trump introduced a cations for Africa, for it is tacitrhetoric, leaders have inade- new initiative — “Prosper Afri- ly being cast as a battleground quately described the breadth ca” — which Bolton claims will for the two world powers who of Sino-African seem to only relations bebe concerned cause much of “It is precisely this public perception of Sino-Afri- with self-agChina’s imports grandizecan relations that enables us largely to ignore the of commodiment. subject.” ties and its exWhethports of mainly er China is manufactured carrying out goods are unsettlingly, and yet, provide alternatives to the the a soft power neo-colonialist unsurprisingly reminiscent of state-owned Chinese develop- agenda in Africa or establishments and expand American ing bona fide trade relations European colonialism.

Chinese investment in Af- investment on the continent. with African countries, we rican countries is starting to According to the fact sheet, the should all, nonetheless, be atbecome a topic of contentious Trump administration express- tentive and be part of the condiscourse in the US, most no- es a commitment to “promot- versation of what it is currently tably in the deliberations in- ing prosperity” “strengthening taking place. Ethical discourse volving US-China trade nego- security” and “striving for sta- should be pointed towards sutiations. John Bolton, national bility” for African nations. perintending China’s business In spite of the administra- ventures on the continent and security advisor to President Trump, stated at the Heritage tion’s ostensible commitment holding African leaders and the Foundation this past Decem- to establishing such partner- African Union accountable for ber that the Chinese “are de- ships with the continent, it protecting land and resources, liberately and aggressively doesn’t require much to see maintaining a mutually benefitargeting their investments in that the US’s abrupt and ener- cial and balanced relationship, the region to gain a competi- gized interest in the continent and refusing to accept a latent tive advantage over the Unit- is potentially more about coun- neocolonial model. Discourse ed States” adding, “China uses tering China’s influence rather should include analysis of sibribes, opaque agreements than a bona fide commitment no-optimism in Africa and siand the strategic use of debt to at fostering a mutual relation- no-pessimism in the West, and hold states in Africa captive to ship with African nations. And of how we can have an accuBeijing’s wishes and demands.” it’s this Sino-pessimism in the rate conception of the reality of Bolton mentions a few African West that continues to fuel Si- the partnership without these countries who are in serious no-optimism in Africa. The US two prevailing influences.☐

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // SPRING 2019 // 07

CAN A WOMAN OF COLOR BE OUR NEXT PRESIDENT? Numbers do all the talking.

Aja Johnson There is a false narrative being put forth in the context of the upcoming 2020 Democratic presidential primary that argues for nomination of an experienced white male—in other words, an “electable”—politician. It’s an argument founded on the assumption that Americans are not ready to embrace a female candidate—or, better yet, one of color. Choosing a white male candidate is what party loyalists and establishment stalwarts claim is a “safe” option and one that offers the best chance of dethroning the despot who currently holds the highest office in the land. Numbers and recent polling data provide a sound counterargument to this widely-held belief.

Indeed, they suggest that the democratic party might not just survive female, non-white nominee, but could be all the better for it.

The aftermath of Hillary Clinton’s relatively unforeseen loss to Donald Trump fomented questions and concerns about what had gone so terribly wrong for a candidate whose victory seemed all but assured. Many of those who struggled to provide an answer to Clinton’s devastating loss clung to the argument that centered

around the viability of a non-traditional candidate. Party leaders like former members of the Democratic National Committee expressed dismay about whether the country would rebound from such a seismic defeat.

It is indisputable that women running for president are subjected to heightened levels of scrutiny.

Discussions about their candidacies transcend the typical questions surrounding competency and experience, verging into the realm of personal life and perceived “domesticity.” Women perceived to be too tough are written off as cold and shrill; anything less is considered a sign of weakness or incompatibility for the role. A candidate like Hillary Clinton, for example, was criticized for how infrequently she smiled and for her husband’s sexual misconduct. It is foreseeable that the plurality of female candidates running in this upcoming election cycle will be subjected to similar—if not worse—attention.

These sexist narratives are precisely the tools that are so often used to discredit women running for the presidency. Indeed, when women lose races—even by small margins—they are immediately written

off as “losing” candidates. Stacey Abrams, notably, narrowly lost her race for the Georgia gubernatorial seat, but has been notably absent from the national conversation about potential presidential candidates. The race between Abrams and her Republican opponent Brian Kemp was marred with scandal and accusations surrounding the former Georgia Secretary of State’s mishandling of votes; indeed, despite the fact that she lost by less than 1.5 points, her feasibility as a potential candidate in future races has been seldom discussed—if at all.

It is this fear of losing “viability” that I argue has led to a widespread dismissal of the feasibility of a woman (let alone one of color) winning the democratic primary.

A candidate like Kamala Harris, for example, could make history as the first Indian-American and African American female presidential nominee for the Democratic party; yet, it is the flip-side of this potential outcome that many seem to cling to.

Say she loses—will it set the clock back for other women of color who might seek the presidency? Or, will America welcome her candidacy with open arms, rejecting the explicit and implicit discomfort with

08 // SPRING 2019 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

X

candidates of color that many argue played a significant role in Stacey Abrams’ loss in Georgia?

The perception that women of color are “inviable” or “ill-fated” nominees can be squashed by polling data. The numbers don’t lie: The 2018 midterms effectively demonstrate that voters are indeed willing to support female candidates of color—especially in regions and municipalities in which they are ethnically and racially disparate from the majority of their constituents. Across the country—in the midwest in particular—women of color won seats in Congress that in many cases represent communities that are demographically white and homogeneous. The Illinois 14th district, for example, elected Lauren Underwood—a black woman

who worked extensively on the construction and deployment of the Affordable Care Act as a senior advisor at the United States Department of Health and Human Services under President Barack Obama. Her constituents are not racially diverse, and her opponent, Randy Hultgren, was a Republican incumbent who had served four consecutive terms and looks a lot more like the voting base she successfully captured.

So why did she win? Her district is 85% white, and she was the first woman of color ever to run for the seat. Yet, she captured 52% of the vote against Hultgren in a historic upset that falls under the broad umbrella of an electoral “blue wave” of shocking triumphs across the country. Consequently, Underwood’s success is indicative

of the fact that those living and voting in Illinois’ 14th district are not looking to elect people who simply look like them. It was her campaign promise to protect the Affordable Care Act and those with pre-existing conditions that propelled her to victory. Indeed, her race and gender ultimately played a small if insignificant role in her campaign and in how voters ultimately casted their ballots.

Lauren Underwood’s victory is just one example in a sea of others that dismantle the oft-asked questions regarding a woman of color’s ability to run a successful campaign for higher office. A Gallup poll from 2015 on “electability” revealed that Americans were quite willing to vote for a female candidate of color—in fact, nine out of ten indicated that they would cast their ballot for someone who is “Catholic, a woman, black, Hispanic or Jewish”. Out of those surveyed, 92% stated that they would vote for both a woman and black candidate, respectively. More interestingly, about 90% of the subset of Republicans surveyed noted that they would vote for the same two categories—with slightly higher values for Democrats.

A candidate like Kamala Harris won’t win in spite of or because of her race and gender. She’ll win based on her turnout operation and the strength of her message. America is ready to nominate—and perhaps elect—a woman of color from the Democratic Party. When posed with questions about her ability to compete for her party’s nomination, Senator Harris’ response is one that I find quite fitting: to discredit a candidate like her doesn’t give America enough credit—and doesn’t account for the seismic shift in the kinds of representatives that have already been elected across this country.☐

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // SPRING 2019 // 09

ISRAEL: THEOCRACY OR DEMOCRACY? Josh Nacht Israel is at a crossroads. To the naked eye, Israel is a beacon of stability in a region historically characterized by turbulence and autocracy: its booming economy is increasingly globally integrated, and it is one of the only nations in the Middle East committed to democratic principles.

Behind this robust exterior, however, is a state whose people are more divided than ever and the country’s relationship with diaspora Jews is reaching new lows.

A number of issues are responsible for Israel’s current predicament: the Occupation that in 2017 turned 50, the steady rise of housing prices in economic hubs like Haifa and Tel Aviv, and unease over the civil wars that have consumed one country after another in the region (including Israel’s next-door neighbor Syria), breeding terrorism and instability in their wake.

However, none of these problems are as salient in the minds of many Israelis and American Jews as the increasingly theocratic nature of the country. Under the current administration, the Ultra-Orthodox religious establishment has sought to cement its power through a series of legally binding measures, including the so-called “conversion bill” that

would strip away recognition from those who chose to enter Judaism outside of the Chief Rabbinate’s official process. And under pressure from Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) parties, Prime Minister Netanyahu reneged on his promise to open a portion of the Western Wall to egalitarian prayer for men and women alike. But perhaps worst of all, Israeli policies have begun to turn openly homophobic, as a law passed this summer, again at the urging of the Haredim in the Knesset, prohibits surrogacy for single men, restricting the already limited number of alternative fertility options available, in a blatant attempt to make it harder for same-sex couples to conceive.

And all this comes after the Israeli government declared two summers ago that no children adopted from Russia (currently the only foreign country Israelis adopt babies from) would go to “non-traditional” families in a move intended to satisfy Netanyahu’s friend and ally Vladimir Putin that received praise from the Ultra-Orthodox as well.

Meanwhile both political and religious leaders of the Ultra-Orthodox have grown bolder in asserting their longstanding claim to be the sole legitimate representatives of Judaism. In September 2017, Israel’s former chief rabbi and the cur-

rent head rabbi of Jerusalem called Reform Jews worse than Holocaust deniers. Two months later, the head of Reform Judaism in the U.S., Rabbi Rick Jacobs, was beaten up by Ultra-Orthodox extremists and religious security officers just for trying to pray together with female faith leaders at the Western Wall. And just this past summer, a Masorti (Conservative) rabbi in Haifa was arrested for marrying couples without recognition from Chief Rabbinate under a new law that authorizes the arrest of anyone caught conducting weddings outside the authority of the Rabbinate. Perhaps most shockingly of all, after the horrific shooting at the synagogue in Pittsburgh by the white nationalist in October, Israel’s current Chief Rabbi, David Lau, refused to call the Tree of Life Congregation a “synagogue” because it wasn’t Orthodox. The sheer belligerence of the Rabbinate apparently knows no bounds, as they appear to provoke and even seek out conflict with liberal and secular Jews at every turn.

It was not always like this. At the outset of Israel’s founding, the Ultra-Orthodox represented a tiny minority in the Jewish State, roughly 400 families in a country of over 650,000 Jews, and they didn’t hold meaningful power in government

14 2017 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW 10 // // FALL SPRING 2019 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW for the first 30 years of the country’s existence. However, when Israel declared independence in 1948, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion made the fateful decision to grant the Ultra-Orthodox a number of major concessions in order to both gain their support for the new state (most Orthodox and Hasidic Jews had been anti-Zionist before World War II) and help the community recover after the large-scale massacre of nearly all of Eastern Europe’s religious Jews during the Holocaust. As a result, the Ultra-Orthodox gained a permanent exception to the mandatory military service (alongside most Israeli Arab groups), guaranteed welfare for their families to enable the men to live out their lives studying Torah and Talmud instead of working, and control over all state-sanctioned Jewish functions, including marriages, funerals, and prayer at holy sites like the Western Wall. In a country with no secular civil law (each religious community has its own civil courts), the Ultra-Orthodox monopoly on Jewish rituals is a real issue, as half the Jewish community identifies as secular or is in a liberal denomination (Reform, Reconstructionist, Conservative, Egalitarian Orthodox, etc) and these non-Orthodox Jews must often compromise their own theological and ideological principles simply in order to get married.

Consequently, all interfaith and same-sex weddings must be performed outside the country (typically Cyprus) in order for the Israeli government to recognize the couples as married.

However, while the arrangement with the Ultra-Orthodox in the country has always been problemat-

ic, the issue is getting considerably worse now that the Ultra-Orthodox not only enjoy legal power but real political clout as well. In the current coalition, Ultra-Orthodox parties represent the swing vote, meaning that they always make or break the majority. As a result, PM Netanyahu has been forced to cave to their demands on issue after issue in order to keep his government in power. It was under pressure from these parties, United Torah Judaism and Shas, that Netanyahu backed out of the compromise on the Western Wall as well as kept the provision in the surrogacy bill excluding same-sex couples. The latter prompted a protest by over a hundred thousand Israelis of all stripes in Tel Aviv this summer, as most Israelis consider LGBT rights integral to democracy. While a new coalition government may take power after the recently announced April 2019 elections that does not include Ultra-Orthodox parties (or gives them a sharply reduced role from their current position of prom-

inence), such outcomes will become increasingly unlikely in the future as the Ultra-Orthodox and the only slightly-less radical “Nationalist Religious” population continue to grow while the number of secular and liberal Jewish Israelis remains relatively constant. Under 1 percent of the population when Israel was founded in 1948, the Ultra-Orthodox (Haredim) already make up more than 12 percent of the country thanks to an average birth rate of 6.7 children per family that shows little sign of declining in the near future. If Ultra-Orthodox and Nationalist-Religious Jews (currently counted as between 15 and 20 percent of the national population) grow to represent more than half of all Israeli Jews, as most estimates assume will take place within 40 years, then one must question whether Israel’s democratic future is imperiled.

Regardless of what happens on the highly publicized Palestinian front, the real threat to Israeli democracy may originate from within the state:

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW SPRING2018 2019////11 COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // // SUMMER 11 from the growth and increasing power of communities with strong illiberal views.

It is now on both this issue as well as the Palestinian front that many Israelis and international observers believe it is too late. Former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, former Secretary of State John Kerry, and the celebrated historian Benny Morris have all expounded at length upon the unsustainability of the current status quo. In some form or another, each has said that Israel will either cease to be a democracy or cease to be a Jewish state in the future if the Occupation continues.

For unless it successfully withdraws its military and half a million settlers from the West Bank, Israel will have to choose between permanently denying citizenship to a population under their control (undemocratic) or granting citizenship to millions of Palestinians and permanently eroding its Jewish majority. What is less well-known, however, is that many have reached similar conclusions about the growing power of the Haredim and the internal threat that it poses to Israeli democracy.

The once-prominent Israeli journalist Ari Shavit noted in his seminal 2015 book, My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel, that within five years from now, over 40 percent of Israel’s kindergarteners will be either Haredi or Arab (insert footnote), a clear demographic threat to the majority secular Jewish state that Theodor Herzl envisioned.

As the birth rates of both Israeli Arabs (most of whom are devout Muslims) and Haredi Jews continue to significantly outpace those of secular Israelis, a number of whom leave the country to work in Europe or

the United States anyways, Shavit predicts Israel’s liberal, democratic culture will dissipate and Tel Aviv (and possibly Haifa) will become islands of liberalism awash in seas of fundamentalism. And the famed Persian-American scholar of religion Reza Aslan issued a similar warning in an oped in CNN two years ago when he analogized the demographic growth and increasing political power of the Haredim in Israel to that of the fundamentalists in Iran in the years leading up to the Islamic Revolution that established the brutal, conservative theocracy the country enjoys today.

Aslan and Shavit are just the tip of the iceberg. The late Amos Oz, one of Israel’s best known writers, dedicated his last book to the threat posed by internal and external fundamentalism to the nation’s future.

Leading political scientist, Michael Walzer, author of the now classic text in political theory and international relations, Just and Unjust Wars, wrote a book in 2015 that sought to explain the rise of religious nationalism in Israel (as well as in India and Algeria) in spite of Zionism’s socialist origins and the 30 year reign of the secular Labor Party in national politics. And even the Wall Street Jour-

WSJ.com

nal, a newspaper that rarely features any reporting that could possibly be deemed critical of Israel, published a piece that outlined how a growing Haredi population is shifting the social dynamics of small and mid-size towns in Israel into spaces increasingly unwelcoming of secular Jews and tourists. Taking data directly from Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics (akin to our Bureau of Labor Statistics), the WSJ included a graphic that demonstrates the Haredi population is expected to reach almost 5 million by 2057 (see graphic below), not even 40 years away. At that point, Haredi Jews will make up over 35 percent of the country’s expected Jewish population and when this is added to the numbers of Nationalist-Religious Jews, the two groups together will account for more than than half the Jews in Israel.

12 //SPRING 2019 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW But while the late Oz and the gether. The Israeli president in turn rently on track to double their popaging Morris and Shavit may be con- would replace the Chief Rabbinate, ulation every 20 years in Israel and signed to the belief that it’s simply Keinan explains, as the arbiter of this could mean that by the end of too late to change Israel’s trajecto- Jewish authority by determining the century they will not only conry at this point, that, perhaps like who counts as Jewish, what kinds of trol all official Jewish (and state-recthe world and climate change, the marriages can be performed in the ognized) customs in the country problem has simply grown too in- country and recognized as Jewish, (as they do now) but enjoy demosurmountable to tackle in time, I am and which rabbis and what kinds cratic legitimacy for this control as not willing to accept this just yet. of prayer at the holy sites will be ac- well. Besides, secular Jews (in and These changes are set to happen cepted. While the rulings of succes- out of Israel) may be more likely to over the course of my lifetime. As sive presidents would undoubtedly skip voting in such an election anya Jew who still very much believes fail to satisfy all parties, at least all ways, as matters of custom are likely that the existence of a liberal-dem- Jews would have their voices heard to be of less concern to them than ocratic and Jewish State of Israel, in in the process. Furthermore, insti- they are to fundamentalists in any spite of its many flaws, is necessary tuting this now or in the near future, faith. Thus, the Ultra-Orthodox may to guarantee the security of not only while the Ultra-Orthodox are a still well represent a plurality if not an Israeli Jews outright mabut the diasjority of votpora as well “I remain hopeful that our 15-million strong community ers in such by serving as a elections decan find a way to preserve what many see as our people’s perpetual hacades before greatest collective triumph of the last 2000 years.” ven whenever they actually anti-Semibecome the tism arises, I majority and remain hopeful that our 15-million minority among Jews in Israel and in thereby gain control of the position strong community can find a way to the diaspora, would almost certain- even sooner. That is why any real preserve what many see as our peo- ly mean that whoever was elected solution to this issue must not only ple’s greatest collective triumph of would moderate the stringency of remove the Haredim’s stranglehold the last 2000 years. I am not alone official Judaism in Israel currently on religious authority in Israel but in this. Tal Keinan, an American-Is- espoused by the Chief Rabbinate. also work to integrate them into Israeli venture capitalist who recently As creative as Keinan’s solu- rael’s otherwise flourishing society. spoke at Columbia, also thinks that tion is, however, I don’t think it goes To permanently protect secular saving a democratic and Jewish Is- far enough. Aside from the practical and liberal Judaism in Israel (as well rael is still possible. In his new book, difficulties of organizing an election as secular Christians and Muslims for God is in the Crowd: Twenty-First amongst all Jews everywhere in the that matter) and do something to Century Judaism, Keinan argues world and the questions this would mend the nation’s increasingly fracthat Israel and the global Jewish raise about both eligibility and ver- tured relationship with Jews in the community must undertake a se- ifiability (as how would voters be diaspora, the country must first and ries of reforms in order to repair the expected to “prove” their Jewish foremost adopt a secular civil code. rift between Israel and the diaspora identity?), the idea doesn’t prevent Israelis who want to marry someone and check Ultra-Orthodox power in Ultra-Orthodox Jews from being of the same sex or a different faith Israel. This would start with offering able to dominate the faith (and per- must not be required to leave the all Jews in and outside of Israel the haps the Israeli state) at some future country to do it. Jews in the country chance to vote for Israel’s president, point. Even if it gives liberal, secu- should not have to prove their Halaa step that albeit unlikely, Kein- lar, and other non-Orthodox and chically-certified origins to the Raban admits, is necessary in his view non-Haredi Jews more of a say right binate to marry one another. These to bring the two communities to- now, the Ultra-Orthodox are cur- are infringements upon basic hu-

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // SPRING 2019 // 13 man rights. Genuine religious freedom doesn’t just require tolerating multiple religions or even treating them equally under the law, it means allowing people to choose their level of religious observance altogether, and forcing them to meet certain religious obligations or undergo even basic religious rituals in order to get married (or buried) and/or adopt children clearly violates this.

In addition to ending these various prohibitions and logistical hangups, the establishment of a secular civil code in Israel, as we have in the U.S., would abolish forever the question of what forms of Judaism (or other religions) will be accepted as legitimate by the state because religion will become a private matter. Rabbis, ministers, and imams will simply need to be ordained in their denominations or communities rather than have to receive an authorizing license or permit from a state-run religious authority like the Chief Rabbinate. Non-Orthodox Jewish leaders outside Israel will no longer feel slighted that the state that calls itself the homeland or “nation-state” of all Jews doesn’t recognize the legitimacy of their denominations because the Israeli government would no longer play any role in designating or even recognizing religious authority. The Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religious courts that currently govern all civil matters for their respective communities could be kept as options for those wishing to live under rules of the faith they identify with, but secular courts would also be established as open alternatives for any Israeli. This way even if Haredi or Orthodox Jews generally became a plurality in Israel, the institutions of

the state would continue to protect Jews who don’t follow these traditions.

But the demographic side of the issue could also likely be mitigated if Israel undertook certain social reforms that would incentivize the Haredim to participate in society at large. First, Israel should abolish its public school system whereby students are segregated on the basis of religiosity and ethnicity.

Even as many members of Israel’s Arab and Ultra-Orthodox communities have long insisted on separate school systems, these have served to alienate both groups from the secular Israeli mainstream. Ultra-Orthodox schools in particular are known to be quite low-quality as a result of the lack of basic education in “core subjects” like English, science, and math that are integral to attaining jobs in Israel’s increasingly hi-tech economy. Not only does the separate schooling isolate the communities from one another, but the lack of instruction provided to Ultra-Orthodox students, particularly boys, means that they are largely unable to find work, thereby depriving them of the financial viability to ever leave the confines of their highly-subsidized communities even if they want to.

Lastly, these subsidies constitute another part of the problem.

It’s economically unsustainable for most of the male members of the fastest growing demographic to continue to enjoy state-funding to not work. While these subsidies should not simply be swept away overnight, they can be gradually reduced as Haredi men are retrained and boys in the community begin to receive better education. The

withdrawal of subsidies is also likely to limit the number of children Haredi families have. Even as Haredi birth rates remain the highest of any group in Israel, they are substantially lower than they were decades ago and this is likely due in part to past cuts by Israel to the amount of money doled out by the government to Jewish families for each new child, a practice that disproportionately benefited Haredi families. Further reducing the subsidies that essentially allow Haredi men to be paid to pray as well as capping government benefits after three children are likely to lower the Haredi birth rate as well as ease Israeli taxpayers’ economic burden. Conversely, another way to offset the high Haredi birth rates could be to increase the amount of children non-Orthodox Israelis have. This could be achieved, or at least incentivized, by the passing of laws that would require companies (which mostly employ non-Haredi Jews) to offer more generous maternity and paternity leave packages and benefits. In Scandinavia, such tactics have been somewhat successful in reversing the declining fertility rates plaguing much of the developed world.

Ultimately, Israel will likely need to experiment with multiple approaches to solve the multi-tiered issue of the growth of the Ultra-Orthodox (in population and in power), but adopting at least some secular civil functions in areas like marriage, divorce, adoptions, and burials as well as integrating all Israelis into a strong unified public school system seem like obvious first steps. As long as Israelis and diaspora Jews remain innovative and committed, then Israel’s fate isn’t sealed yet.☐

14 // SPRING 2019// COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

FEATURE

IMMIGRATION DETENTION— FOR US CITIZENS Maria Castillo This past April in Monroe County, Florida, Peter Sean Brown was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), despite being a US citizen who was born in Philadelphia. Brown filed a lawsuit against the Sheriff of Monroe County for unlawful arrest and detention and cited that the Sheriff’s Office ignored Brown’s “repeated protest, offer to produce proof [of citizenship], and the jail’s records” and sent his information to ICE. ICE then proceeded to fax the county jail an I–247A “detainer request” form that flags Brown for deportation and requests the jail to hold Brown for an additional 48 hours. Although the manager from the restaurant he worked at called the Sheriff’s office and explained to them that Brown was a United States citizen, the Sheriff’s office complied with ICE’s detention request and detained Brown for three weeks before taking him to the Krome Detention Center in Miami, which is designed for immigrants awaiting deportation.

According to his lawsuit transcript, Brown also reportedly attempted to make phone calls to ICE to explain the mistake but was unable to reach them the several times he

called throughout that three-week period. Once at Krome Detention Center, however, ICE agents agreed to look at Mr. Brown’s birth certificate and verified that he was indeed an American citizen and ordered for release. Brown was released after twenty-two days of unconstitutional detention.

Race has been central part to immigration enforcement, especially in the southwestern region of this country, a notion reaffirmed by court rulings like the 1975 Supreme Court case United States v. Brignoni Ponce. In a quarterly issue of the Washington University Law Review titled “The Case Against Race Profiling in Immigration Enforcement,” Law Professor of Chicano Studies Kevin Johnson explains that racial profiling in immigration enforcement “deserves special scrutiny because it disproportionately burdens persons of Latin American ancestry in the United States, the majority of whom are US citizens or lawful immigrants.” He also goes on to explain the harmful consequences of this racialized enforcement for all Latinos, US citizens or not: “Generally speaking, whether they are US citizens, lawful immigrants, or undocumented aliens, persons of Latin American ancestry or ap-

pearance are more likely than other persons in the United States to be stopped and interrogated about their immigration status.”

Johnson also makes the important point that African-Americans and other racial minorities are also routinely targeted by immigration enforcement officials. His theory of racialized immigration enforcement raises an important question regarding ICE’s central dogma of keeping their hands off of American citizens: who fits its portrait of American citizens and why are citizens repeatedly targeted?

Cases of United States citizens being wrongfully detained for immigration purposes are neither few nor far between. These situations are able to occur due to systematic processes that enable an immigration enforcement agency to misidentify and then subsequently detain an individual that is an American citizen. These processes can begin with immigration enforcement roving patrols, who can pull over vehicles to question the occupants’ legal status, up to reforms and amendments that were added in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1996, like task force agreements that allow local law enforcement to execute certain immigration enforcement

FEATURE

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // SPRING 2019 // 15

responsibilities up to jail enforce- “[the Border Patrol agent’s] only American citizens finding themment agreements that allows their basis for the agent’s stop was that selves in complicated and diffiofficers to screen individuals.

[Jose] looked like an alien and that, cult situations in which ICE agents An example of immigrant rov- in arresting Jose in an act of racial have refused to either even review ing patrols targeting a legal citizen profiling.” The immigration judge their immigration file or to accept was analyzed in a St. Mary’s Law proceeded to terminate Jose’s de- and act on different kinds of proof School journal entry titled “On the portation and removal proceeding of citizenship. For example, US citBorder Patrol izen Davino and Its use of Watson was Illegal Roving held in ICE “Cases of United States citizens being wrongfully dePatrol Stops” for tained for immigration purposes are neither few nor far custody chronicled a three and between.” lawsuit where half years several Latinos after ICE in South Texas agents rewere racially profiled and wrong- due to lack of evidence he was in fused to believe Watson’s claims fully arrested and then detained for the country illegally and charged that he was a citizen through his being in the country illegally after the Border Patrol agent of violat- father’s naturalization. Agents being pulled over. In one case an ing the constitution. then proceeded to misidentify immigration judge concluded that There are various examples of his father on their database and

16 // SPRING 2019 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

FEATURE

consulted the incorrect immigra- ing a copy of his passport from a geted and subsequently detained tion records, alleging that he was family member, ICE proceeded to by ICE? What processes are leadnot a US citizen. Even after federal cancel his detainer request yet still ing and enabling ICE to hold these lawyers discovered that they had listed in the cancellation notice citizens indefinitely, ranging from made this mistake, ICE refused to that his nationality was Mexican. a time period of a handful of days release Watson. A similar situation These are the concrete conse- up to several years? An introductoalso occurred in July of 2016, when quences and realities of racial en- ry insight into this answer can be Sergio Carrillo was also detained forcement tactics that are not held provided by ICE official Lori Haley,

by ICE for a number of days and accountable to a standard of accu- who said “ICE would never knowand moved to an immigration de- racy or transparency. ingly take enforcement action tention center where ICE officials A study done by the CATO In- against or detain an individual if refused to listen to his claims of stitute that incorporated research there was probative evidence indicitizenship. Jennie Pasquarella, the over ICE’s detention record in cating the person was a US citizen.

Director of Immigrant’s Rights for Texas found that ICE wrongfully Should such information come to the American Civil Liberties Union detained 3,506 American citizens light, the agency will take immedistated the ate action to following address the “This agency has to be held accountable for its underly- matter.” The about Carrillo’s case: “I think ing mission to target certain racial and ethnic groups over enforcement it’s particularthat ICE others.” ly alarming practices is that they built off the never took any steps to investigate across the state over the eleven premise that they must not target his citizenship. He claimed he was year period from 2006–2017. CATO American citizens. By following a citizen over, and over, and over researchers applied this same rate this guideline and holding it as the again and nobody took him seri- of wrongful detention in relation golden standard of their method ously.” to the total number of deten- of operation while simultaneously In one of the most well- tions and estimated that a total still detaining thousands of Ameriknown cases surrounding the un- of 19,873 US citizens nationwide can citizens indicates that there is a lawful immigrant detention of US have been wrongfully detained fundamental disconnect between citizens, Gerardo Gonzalez was and accused of being in the coun- those they expect to be American represented by the American Civ- try illegally over this same period. citizens and the reality of Ameriil Liberties Union where court fil- National Public Radio reported can demographics. As noted preings revealed that a Los Angeles that the number of US citizens viously, tens of thousands of UnitPolice Department office wrote on who have wrongfully detained by ed States citizens are estimated to Gonzalez’s booking record that he ICE might be even higher. They have been wrongfully detained by was born in the country of Mexico. cite the Gerardo Gonzalez v. Immi- ICE. Sometimes abstract statistics Gonzalez stated on the record that gration and Customs Enforcement impede our ability to recognize the he was born in California and had and Duncan Roy v. County of Los quotidian injustices that wrongful a proof of citizenship. Despite that Angeles ACLU class action lawsuits detention entails. fact that he communicated he was in which lawyers state that 21,000 Racial profiling in immigraa native born citizen to officials, Americans have been held illegal- tion enforcement is a reality that and, because of what was record- ly during the past four years. This affects both the undocumented ed on the booking file, ICE placed surpasses CATO’s estimate of near- and documented American coman immigration detainer on him ly 20,000 in the past ten years by munity. In early 2017, immigration and held him for six months with- over one thousand citizens. officers raided a rural Pennsylvania out giving him the opportunity to How are tens of thousands of poultry transport and disregarded prove his citizenship. After receiv- United States citizens being tar- the “No Trespassing” signs despite

FEATURE not having warrants or documented probable cause for targeting this company. Witnesses testified that the ICE officers only lined up the Latino workers for questioning over their immigration status.

Immigration judge John Carle said that the argument accusing ICE of racial profiling was very strong and that they had “egregiously violated” the Constitution. Abrupt raids and targeting of minority communities that do not have individuals with arrest warrants or outstanding legal records negatively affects both the undocumented and legal resident and citizen communities.

Although this incident occurred less than two years ago, racial profiling in immigrant enforcement has been around for a long time and even been litigated in the country’s highest court. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce is a 1975 Supreme Court case between a U.S. citizen from Puerto Rico and the United States Border Patrol.

Border Patrol officers claimed that they questioned and followed Felix Humberto Brignoni-Ponce because of the “Mexican appearance” of Brignoni-Ponce and his passengers. The Court ruled that targeting individuals because of “Mexican appearance” is unconstitutional and a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, the Court listed a couple of examples of characteristics that together warrant a reason for interrogation on citizenship status: “characteristic appearance of persons who live in Mexico, relying on such factors as the mode of dress and haircut,” “driver’s behavior,” and “characteristics of the area in which they encounter a vehicle”. Many immigration lawyers felt that this verdict

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // SPRING 2019 // 17 and list of characteristics allow immigration agencies to racially profile individuals, given that these characteristics can be drawn from racial and ethnic stereotypes.

A Stanford Professor studied a specific case where this established relationship between ICE and law enforcement at the county level significantly affected Latino students at public elementary, middle, and high schools in a study titled ‘Vanished Classmates: The Effects of Local Immigration Enforcement on School Enrollment.’ In just a two-year time period, schools within 55 counties that collaborate with ICE lost around 300,000 Latino students. Interestingly enough, the majority of the students that disappeared from these communities and schools were United States citizens. It is safe to assume that many of these children must have been in mixed status families, with at least one undocumented family member. In a New York Times article in which this study was discussed, columnist David Leonhardt writes, “The only plausible explanation, Dee believes, is immigration enforcement. As the counties cracked down, families with at least one undocumented immigrant fled. So, in some cases, did Latino citizens subjected to harassment or racial profiling. And the children in these families suffered.”

The idea that hundreds of thousands of Latino students, both undocumented and citizens, felt compelled to move out of their communities due to the impact of the policing and heightened presence of immigration enforcement speaks volumes about their reality.

If elementary school students do

not feel confident about their own safety or the safety of one of their family members, there needs to be reform over how and which communities are being racially targeted.

Throughout this political moment, immigration enforcement agencies––especially ICE–– have been held under intense scrutiny after a series of controversies surrounding family separation policy, illegal solitary confinement, detention of pregnant women, prolonged incarceration of children, and other morally questionable policies and practices. Extremely important questions have been raised over how they treat undocumented immigrants and families. The movement #AbolishICE has gained a lot of political traction since the family separation policy was implemented in June 2018. Several prominent Democrats have generally backed that position, including potential presidential candidates and Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Elizabeth Warren. There are many reasons to object to the method in which immigration enforcement operates in our current era and racial profiling is an important one. This agency has to be held accountable for its underlying mission to target certain racial and ethnic groups over others.

Has racial profiling gone too far now that thousands of American citizens have found themselves in ICE detention centers, a few bureaucratic mistakes away from deportation? I would argue that it has, and this large amount of citizen detention only represents a deeper issue of whom ICE is really targeting.☐

18 // SPRING 2019 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

FEATURE

HOW DO YOU SOLVE A PROBLEM LIKE SHAMIMA? Jasleen Chaggar In February 2015, a group of three radicalized British girls stole $1000 worth of their parents’ jewellery and secretly booked plane tickets to Turkey.

Days later, the teens were smuggled across the Syrian border,

relocated to Raqqa, and married off to foreign jihadists. The CCTV footage of the ‘Isis Brides,’ as they came to be known, shocked the world. It seemed as if the jihadi threat had seeped into the very fabric of Western society, radicalising the most vulnerable from within. Back in 2015, most hoped for the girls’ safe return.

Fast-forward four years: under the heat of a hostile press, public sympathy has all but evaporated.

Shamima Begum, one of the surviving teens, has asked to return home. Found in a Syrian refugee camp by a British journalist, the now-19-year-old, has already buried two of her children and

FEATURE

FEATURE given birth to a third. In an interview, she stated, “I’m scared this baby is going to get sick in this camp, that’s why I really want to get back to Britain.” Her interview is remarkably calm and her accent unmistakably British.

In response to hostile public opinion, Home Secretary Sajid Javid took the extreme action of revoking Shamima’s British FEATURE citizenship. Yet, as Javid’s critics have argued, this decision was based on neither security nor legality. Instead, the Home Secretary chose to appease the collective fear of the public, using the radicalized teen as a political pawn. Shamima has become an easy target in a time of uneasy politics. In a divided, post-Brexit Britain, the demonization of an indoctrinated citizen is a cheapshot scored for political points.

Shamima Begum is a British citizen who should have been granted the right to return home.

In spite of Javid’s portrayal of Shamima as an unprecedented threat to national security, the return of radicalized Brits is not unique. Of the 900 British ISIS-sympathisers who travelled to Syria during the early stages of the conflict, around 40% have already returned to the UK. Moreover, every returnee was subject to criminal investigation and threat assessment. Therefore, in singling out Shamima as an example, the Home Secretary is falsely perpetuating a narrative in which radicalized defectors are incapable of reform.

The astounding lack of public sympathy is perhaps explained by Shamima’s seemingly remorseless interview. When

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // SPRING 2019 // 19 asked whether she regretted her decision, she responded, “only at the end,” and admitted that the sight of decapitated heads “did not faze her.” Yet, to take her words at face value is to undermine the coercive power of the ideological dogma she has been fed for half a decade. We must assess Shamima in context: grief-stricken, vulnerable, and radicalized. She has laid flowers on the graves of two of her newborns, witnessed the death of friends, and made choices not of her own volition, but based upon a deeply crystallized indoctrination. As much as she needs prosecution, Shamima needs support and rehabilitation.

Given the 2011 expansion of the government’s counter-terrorism initiative, ‘PREVENT,’ Shamima should be viewed as a vulnerable victim who fell through the cracks of the system. Indeed, in the same year as the schoolgirls fled, the program boasted that 150 people, including 50 children, had been prevented from entering conflict zones in Iraq and Syria. As a minor radicalized under the purview of the British government, it is our job to facilitate the incarceration and rehabilitation of this exploited victim.

This reality raises another question: why we should place Shamima’s refugee status above the 39,000 people with whom she shares a refugee camp? After such a flagrant rejection of British values, why should we let her return ahead of people who have faced the horrific consequences of her actions?

The answer is simple: she is

one of our own.

Though Javid contends that Shamima holds Bangladeshi citizenship due to her heritage, the country’s refusal to recognize her as a citizen leaves her stateless in practice. Statelessness is not only illegal under international law, it is also unethical. Given the centrality of citizenship in being protected and persecuted under the law, we cannot grant the Home Secretary the power to arbitrarily dictate who is included or excluded from our country. Indeed, to do so would set a dangerous precedent of inequality between citizens. As the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation Lord Anderson recognized, given the same circumstances, he would retain the legal right to return, whereas a British citizen of Bangladeshi or Pakistani heritage would not.

If passport stripping becomes permissible, then the citizenship of immigrants becomes contingent upon their good behaviour.

Thus, citizenship cannot be a question of character; it must be an assertion of rights. Shamima left using a British passport, and therefore must be prosecuted in British courts of law.

So, yes, Shamima Begum committed a crime. But she is also a deeply misguided young woman in dire need of rehabilitation. And, critically, she is one of our own. Though public opinion may change, our responsibility to our citizens remains constant. If we value what it means to be a British citizen, then we owe it to Shamima and to our ourselves to enable her return.☐

20 // SPRING 2019 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

‘IT’S TIME TO TELL OUR STORY’: BETO, DEMOCRATS, AND EMOTION IN 2020 Ellie Hansen “Can you talk about the role of emotion in politics - how much does it matter for a Democrat in 2020. . .?” This is the question former Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke responded to in front of eager Columbia students in Low Memorial Library on February 4th.

While O’Rourke came up short in his 2018 bid to unseat Republican Senator Ted Cruz, he inspired Democrats across the nation with a unifying message and a boldly progressive agenda.

O’Rourke replied that Donald Trump’s fear-mongering with immigration is a perfect example of how politicians can use emotional rhetoric to push a policy agenda: “Dreamers are gang members. . .they will rape your daughter. . .kill your kids. . .take your benefits and your place. . .That is a powerful, emotional argument, and it cannot only be met by numbers, and figures. . .It’s also got to be met with storytelling and emotion.” According to O’Rourke, Democrats will only win “if we can engage [with constituents] emotionally as well

as rationally.”

This is the strategy O’Rourke applied so effectively on the campaign trail last year, so it is no surprise that he defends his own style. But is emotional rhetoric really the best strategy to beat Trump in 2020? Are there dangers that come with this approach?

Despite laments about the demise of rationality in politics, emotion has always played a significant role in democratic elections, according to Laura Jenkins, professor of Political Science at the University of Birmingham.

In American politics, this tradition can be traced back to leftist presidential nominee William Jennings-Bryan.

Jennings-Bryan presented a fiercely populist message, using the new American rail system to meet voters face-to-face. Much like with O’Rourke, Jennings-Bryan’s ability to connect emotionally with voters earned him a cult-like following and helped him raise money.

Importantly, though—and also similar to O’Rourke—Jennings-Bryan didn’t win. His campaign increased the intensity of voters’ support faster than their

numbers.

Emotional rhetoric was employed again as political strategy in the 1970s, when groups opposed to the feminist Equal Rights Amendment used fear-mongering tactics to quash its ratification— even though the amendment enjoyed support from a majority of Americans.

On a more recent note, Brett Kavanaugh’s emotional speech during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing may have helped get him confirmed, as he passionately rebuked Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations with emotionally-charged stories about his upbringing and deceased father.

It is thus clear that emotional rhetoric remains an effective political strategy that can be used to craft narratives and reach people unconvinced by statistics and policy proposals—and who often reside outside the moderate majority. Though it can be used to create positive change, I am concerned about the consequences of this approach. There are plenty of instances in history where emotional rhetoric helped increase the following of ill-intentioned candi-

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // SPRING 2019 // 21 dates and propel them into power. seizing on people’s emotional this political strategy may be beAdolf Hitler is an obvious but frustrations and then steering the side the point. As O’Rourke savviimportant example. Hitler came to nation toward tyranny. Donald ly points out, a logical, moderate power in Gerapproach to many withpolitics is out ever win“Emotional rhetoric, when misused, threatens a democrat- meaningless ning an actual if it doesn’t ic process that should operate around a common set of majority in an win. O’Rofacts—not a series of competing emotional narratives.” election, using urke, a prodiemotional gious user of rhetoric exsocial media, ploitatively. He thrived on peo- Trump also got elected by cap- can attest that especially in the ple’s anger, economic anxieties, italizing on racial and economic digital age, emotional soundbites and prejudices to engineer one of anxieties, and recently declared get more coverage than does dry history’s most horrific genocides. a state of national emergency to policy. Any argument that uses If his ascent sounds familiar, build a wall along the US-Mexico both logical and emotional ‘truth’ it should. Hitler rose to power by border—a move that has already is generally more compelling, p r o m p t e d well-rounded, and, as O’Rourke many states to puts it, “inspiring.” sue for its unThe Democrats’ most pressing constitution- need is to get Trump out of office ality. I have no by any means necessary. intention of beEven if the efficacy of emoing alarmist or tional appeals raises concern drawing unfair about the volatility and vulneracomparisons, bility of the American electorate— but feel a need and in my opinion, it does—these to point out worries may be irrelevant until the historical the Democrats address their foresimilarities. most problem: getting elected. It E m o t i o n - is also certainly true that an emoal rhetoric, tional campaign based on unity, when misused, empathy and concern for minority threatens a groups is an improvement from d e m o c r a t i c one based on resentment and fear. process that Perhaps O’Rourke is spotshould oper- on in his estimations, and an ate around a emotional approach is not only common set of the most ‘inspiring’ strategy for facts -- not a se- a 2020 candidate, but also the ries of compet- most pragmatic one. This would ing emotion- put him in an excellent position al narratives. to pursue the presidency, if he so Even so, in our chooses, and demonstrate that current polit- Democrats are most successful ical climate, when they temper policy proSource: Commons.wikimedia.org the morality of posals with emotional appeals.☐

FEATURE

22 // SPRING 2019 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

VERY SAD AND VERY BRITISH Brexit interview with Professor Tim Bale.

Benjamin Sachs Over two years have passed since the referendum in which 52% of the United Kingdom’s population voted to leave the European Union, yet the British government is still figuring out the logistics of its historic “Brexit.” Last week, Prime Minister Theresa May’s plan to withdraw Britain from the European Union was resoundingly rejected by the House of Commons -- the biggest defeat that a prime minister has ever received in Parliament in modern British history. The coming months will determine the UK’s post-EU future as a host of important, thorny issues remain undecided.

To make sense of the current turmoil within the British government regarding Brexit, I sat down with Professor Tim Bale, a Politics Professor at Queen Mary University of London. Professor Bale specializes in British and European politics, has written a textbook on comparative European politics, and is deeply interested in Brexit and its ramifications for the future of Europe.

CPR: There has been much debate in the past few months over this idea of the “backstop” surrounding the Irish border in the Brexit deal. What, in your words, is the “backstop” and what about it has stirred so much debate?

Bale: The backstop is essentially an insurance policy: if the UK and the EU fail to negotiate a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement during the transition period after Brexit, then––in order to guarantee that said failure won’t lead to the re-imposition of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland––the whole of the UK will remain in some sort of customs union with the EU with special provisions for Northern Ireland, until and unless something more permanent is set up by mutual agreement. It drives those wedded to there being no difference between the Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK mad because it would see Northern Ireland treated differently from Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) and because it would prevent the UK doing free trade deals with other countries - which is one of the sup-

posed upsides of Brexit.

CPR: To what extent does PM Theresa May have the support of the British people and the support of her party in moving forward with Brexit negotiations?

Bale: She doesn’t. She has some public sympathy, however misplaced, for trying her best and having to put up with a bunch of backstabbers and fanatics in her own party and Cabinet, but not much more than that. As for her own party: most of them, quite rightly, think she’s negotiated a poor deal but haven’t been able to imagine who might be able to get anything better.

CPR: Parliament is scheduled to vote on PM Theresa May’s Brexit deal on Tuesday, December 11. If it passes, what does the deal mean for the UK’s future? If it fails, what’s the next step?

Bale: The chances of it passing are, most people think, close to zero. If it doesn’t, she can try to persuade the EU to give her a concession or two and then bring it back to parliament in a few weeks’ time. But that supposes that she won’t be forced out or resign if the defeat is too big for her to carry on regard-

FEATURE FEATURE

SUMMER2019 2018////2323 COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // SPRING Source: Publicdomainpictures.net

less. Whatever, if the Withdrawal Agreement doesn’t pass, either first or second time, we will almost certainly see the UK press for an extension to Article 50, under which currently, we would be obliged to leave the EU without a deal at the end of March next year. That would leave time for more negotiations and/or a second referendum.

CPR: This week, Parliament voted successfully to hold the government in contempt. Why did this happen and how significant is it?

Bale: It happened because the government had earlier promised to supply parliament with the full legal opinion on the Withdrawal Agreement written by its chief law officer but then tried to wriggle out of doing so. It’s not that significant shortterm, except in the sense that it confirmed the opinion of the vast majority of MPs that the Withdrawal Agreement would potentially trap the UK in a customs union due to the backstop provision. It’s significant long term because it will make it difficult for future governments to hide such advice.

CPR: Were you surprised by the results of the 2016 referendum to leave the EU? Why or why not?

Bale: I always thought it would be really close but, like

many people, I thought the economic arguments would in the end probably persuade a narrow majority to vote to remain. I underestimated quite how poor the Remain campaign would be and quite how ruthless the Leave campaign, and its boosters in the media, would be. I also underestimated how many people who didn’t normally vote would come out to register a protest vote against a government they felt (not unjustly) didn’t care much about them or their concerns.

CPR: Do you think a second referendum, an idea floated by anti-Brexiters, could conceivably happen? In other words, is there any scenario in which the UK remains in the EU? Bale: I didn’t used to think a second referendum stood much chance of happening but I do now. It’s clear that, as many of us thought, the Brexiteers would find it impossible to deliver on their promises in a real world negotiation with a much bigger, richer and stronger bloc of countries that were determined not to let the UK have all the benefits of belonging to the club without bearing any of the costs. Now that people know that, and if parliament rejects what’s on offer, then the only exit from the burning building is to throw it out to the people to decide again.

There’s no other way to make a

decision to stay in after all legitimate.

CPR:What do you think the economic fallout of Brexit will be? How close to the EU is the UK likely to remain in terms of trade and customs?

Bale: All - and I mean all -the credible independent assessments say the country will be worse of as a result of any conceivable deal. Even if we end up very close, we won’t have a say in the regulatory environment, as we do now. That’s crazy.

CPR: Far down the line, decades from now, how do you think this period of time in the UK’s history will be remembered?

What will people focus on and what might they overlook?

Bale: It depends on whether we leave or not. If we don’t, it’ll either be seen as a three year nightmare we’d rather forget or, if the Brexiteers cry betrayal and people believe them, the beginning of an even more populist era that brings to power some sort of anti-European British Donald Trump. If we do leave, we’ll just muddle through - some of realising what we’re missing but trying not to grumble or to say ‘I told you so’, others just getting on with things, either blissfully unaware or else moaning that it doesn’t seem to have got rid of all the ‘bloody immigrants’. All very sad, and all very British, I’m afraid.☐

24 // SPRING 2019 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

THE CASE FOR COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM STARTS RIGHT HERE AT COLUMBIA Sophia Houdaigui The Trump administration continues to keep U.S. immigration policy at the forefront of its political agenda, solidifying immigration’s place as the biggest sticking point between the parties. Its proposal for the construction of a border wall with the neighboring nation of Mexico continues to weaken our country and prevent us from focusing on real immigration priorities, such as comprehensive reform to include protections for US workers and refugees; a path to residency for those already here in the U.S.; and a permanent guest visa program combined with a robust visa system to attract and retain the best and the brightest.

Other Trump initiatives including the “zero-tolerance” policy, the systemic termination of temporary protected status (“TPS”) for a number of countries whose nationals have been in the US for extended periods of time (with nothing to return home to), the assault on the DACA program, and leaving Dreamers uncertain of their future have been nothing less than shameful.

National media coverage focuses on the administration’s systemic

offensives on illegal immigration. Although the subject of legal immigration receives comparatively less coverage, it remains on the minds of US business and universities. The Trump Administration quietly continues to erect rigid barriers to legal immigration, both temporary and permanent, including limiting options and access for foreign students which led to a decline in their enrollment.

A major player in the attack on legal immigration is the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which was created in 2003 to help individuals seeking lawful paths to citizenship. USCIS Director Francis Cissna’s decision to remove the term “nation of immigrants” from the agency’s mission statement sent a clear message that this particular administration is not interested in supporting the estimated 11 million undocumented individuals seeking a path to citizenship. But the attack transcends rhetoric, given that USCIS appears to fancy itself a gatekeeper of sorts. As such, USCIS has systematically been chipping away at US companies’ ability to bring in foreign talent and keep them here. Petitions for approving non-immigrant visas and visa renewals have become increasingly more difficult. The govern-

ment is attacking applications and changing the rules midstream, even for employees who have been in the United States for years. For an administration that wants to make America great again, they should consider who helped build America in the first place. In 2018, USCIS sent 40% more requests for additional information and evidence than in 2016 to US businesses, and most recently there have been Congressional inquiries surrounding the shocking increases in backlogs, despite high filing fees paid by applicants.

For the Columbia community, this issue should resonate given the impact of these policy alterations or reinterpretations on our peers, alumni, classmates, and possibly even professors. The USCIS practices negatively impact foreign students’ ability to remain and work within the United States following the completion of their degrees and the training periods they are generally afforded.

It also impacts graduates, who were hired by US companies, gave up other opportunities abroad, and are now subject to a high amount of scrutiny during what should be otherwise routine visa applications.

In the grander scheme of things, the Administration’s policies could

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // SPRING 2019 // 25 have an effect on the University itself.

A combination of policy shifts and President Trump’s rhetoric has resulted in a decrease in the number of international students applying for F-1 visas; dropping 17% from 2016. After completing studies at accredited US universities, students are authorized to obtain work permits generally for a one year period, otherwise known as “optional practical training.” Students in the STEM fields are able to qualify for an additional 24-month extension, provided they have a job within the field of STEM, are working for an employer using the government’s E-VERIFY program, and have an approved training program reviewed. Following this process, many US companies seek to permanently hire these students because there is a shortage of American workers in certain STEM areas. Although it seems easy, students are demanded to return back to their home countries after. The Trump administration continues to narrow employment options for F-1 visa holders. Contrarily, consequences for violating the term limits for F-1 visas have grown exponentially, creating a culture of fear and distrust amongst international student populations. Students have grown afraid of traveling home in fear of being denied a visa to return or entry at a US border, such as JFK airport.

The fate of optional training program and non immigrant visa categories, like the H-1B, will have vast consequences on the future of universities and the American STEM field in particular. By narrowing the requirements of the F-1 visa and similar policies, entire departments and programs concerning the field could suffer. Our community of students contributes in so many ways. Ac-

cording to Columbia University’s latest available data, approximately 15% of Columbia College, 23% of SEAS, and 10% of Barnard College are international students. The majority of these students pay full tuition and it’s likely that revenue is important to the University, though I do not claim to understand the school’s finances.

If we, as a University, are interested in continuing to accept, educate, and even hire foreign students, then we must think about how to ensure their ability to stay in the United States

itive, particularly with regards to STEM, and decreasing the number of foreign students specialized in such fields only works to harm the nation’s viability in the global economy.

While the issue of immigration is a multi-faceted one, focusing on your peers as individuals affected by policy changes in the White House renders the subject more tangible and personal. For while performative acts, such as calls to construct a border wall, are harmful, USCIS Director Cissna continues to advance slight

following graduation, should they so desire.

In fairness to the current administration, it’s not all their fault.

The immigration system has been broken for over 30 years; it’s just that we don’t need a wall to add insult to injury. Chilling the interest, and the ability, of international students to continue to work and study in the United States, not only has humanitarian complications, it also denies the nation of potential well-educated and well-disciplined members of the economy. Foreign markets have become increasingly more compet-

but significant alterations to immigration policy that will have ripple effects close to home. Companies such as Amazon, Google, and Facebook continue to call upon the Administration to do the right thing.

They believe in the importance of new immigrants, and recognize that family and business-driven immigration fuels innovation and allows us to compete globally. The Columbia community does not need to look far to understand that; contrary to USCIS’ updated mission statement, we indeed remain a nation of immigrants.☐

26 // SPRING 2019 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

THE UKRAINIAN SCHISM: WHY IT MATTERS, POLITICALLY Nonetheless, this conflict is not limited to this region of the world. The United States Department of Defense spent over On October 7th, 2018, a $250 million USD in Ukraine in New York Times headline read 2017. In September of 2018, “Russia-Ukraine Tensions Set 10 NATO countries sent troops Up the Biggest Christian Schism to western Ukraine to perform Since 1054.” It was the first of joint military exercises with many to come regarding the Ukrainian troops. The reason creation of the newly autonfor western involvement in this omous Ukrainian Orthodox conflict is nuanced. One funChurch. While another major damental reason, however, has break in Christianity may interto do with est those in the evolvthe religious world, why “The influence of the Orthodox Church in Eastern Europe, ing political landscape do Ukraine’s particularly in Russia, has led politics and religion to beof Ukraine. religious praccome intertwined.”

The war tices matter b e g a n in a foreign shortly afpolicy context? The answer lies in the war largest military spenders in the ter a monumental change in a Rusthat is now entering its fifth year world. Since the conflict began, government—from Ukraine has spent approximate- sian-leaning administration to a in eastern Ukraine.

The war in Ukraine began ly 3.5 billion USD annually on Western-leaning one. This new in 2014 when Russia annexed military expenses, a stark depar- government had hopes of joinCrimea, a peninsula in southern ture from its usual average of ing both the European Union Ukraine, and Russian-backed 1.9 billion USD. While the Rus- (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaseparatist forces seized por- sian Federation does not release ty Organization (NATO). Joining tions of two eastern oblasts a breakdown of its spending, these organizations would lead (the equivalent of U.S. states) in in 2017 Russia spent 61 billion Ukraine’s political and economUkraine, Donetsk and Luhansk. USD on its military, which was a ic activity to mainly occur with the West instead of Russia.

Since then, active fighting has decrease from previous years.

Katherine Malus

persisted, but the fighting line has remained relatively stagnant as soldiers and civilians continue to die on both sides. According to UNIAN, a Ukrainian-based news organization, around 13,000 people have died as a result of the conflict by the end of 2018.

As casualties continue to rise, the Ukrainian government has been forced to spend millions trying to best one of the

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // SPRING 2019 // 27

Since President Vladimir Putin of the Russia sees Ukraine as part of his sphere of influence, even going so far as to say Crimea is “an inseparable part of Russia,” many have pointed to Putin’s actions as a response to the possibility of a Ukrainian aligned western world. One of their points of evidence is his speech regarding the annexation, where President Putin said, “On the contrary, they [the west] have lied to us many times, made decisions behind our backs, placed us before an accomplished fact.”

Why does the Ukrainian Orthodox Church matter in this context?

While the connection between the conflict in Ukraine and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church may not seem initially clear, the influence of the Orthodox Church in Eastern Europe, particularly in Russia, has led politics and religion to become intertwined.

To understand how this influence has grown, the history of Orthodox Christianity, particularly in Russia needs to be understood.

Orthodox Christianity was founded on the concept of a Pentarchy, meaning there would be five patriarchates. The one that remains the most powerful is the Constantinople Pa-

triarchate (CP), who is the entity that wants to create the Schism.

Even though the Russian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate (ROC-MP) does not hold the foundational Pentarchy status, it is not responsible to the CP and is therefore recognized as an autocephalous church by the CP. Also, the ROC-MP controls local churches that exist underneath it, including the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarch (UOC-MP).

During the days of the Soviet Union, the ROC-MP was forced to exist underground.

The Soviet government destroyed churches, people were not allowed to be outwardly

28 // SPRING 2019 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

Source: En.kremlin.ru

religious, and clergymen were the new and current Patriarch, Patriarch Kirill has, considering regularly shot. One’s loyalty was Patriarch Kirill, set his sights on that this concept appeared in supposed to be to the govern- a different and more extensive his first speech as Patriarch. ment, not a religion. priority. Patriarch Kirill wants to While the concept is not inSince then, the ROC-MP connect the territory canonical- herently political, Kirill does not has made tremendous strides, ly occupied by the ROC, which see political borders between regaining strength not only in includes Russia, Ukraine, Belar- countries he controls canonicalRussia but also in the surround- us, Moldova, and Kazakhstan. ly, which can be seen as similar ing counto Putin’s vitries where sion of rethe ROC-MP “Patriarch Kirill wants to connect the territory canonically uniting the has influence. former Sovioccupied by the ROC, which includes Russia, Ukraine, Patriarch et Bloc. SepBelarus, Moldova, and Kazakhstan.”

Alexy, the Paarating Patriarch of triarch Kirill the ROC-MP from polifollowing the fall of the Soviet This block of people and insti- tics is also harder because of his Union, increased the number tutions stems back from a con- general involvement in politics, of churches by 400% during his cept called “Holy Russia.” Even through his comments on polittenure. though “Holy Russia” has existed ical protest such as Pussy Riot’s After the creation of more for centuries, it has never been and his frequent attendance of infrastructure for the church, prioritized to the degree that Putin’s press conferences.

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // SPRING 2019 // 29 Since the newly-Western leaning Ukrainian government does not appreciate Russia’s influence in its country, many Ukrainian Orthodox Christians, who represent the strongest base of support for the ROC-MP, feel that Patriarch Kirill is prioritizing politics over religion. Their ultimate sense of betrayal was felt by Ukrainians when Patriarch Kirill eventually expressed his support for President Putin’s annexation of Crimea. By displaying this support, Patriarch Kirill signified his approval of attacking his own people and religious followers, leading many Ukrainians, including politicians, to call for the CP to grant the UOC-MP autocephalous status to become simply the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

In the beginning of November 2018, the Constantinople Patriarch finally broke his silence on the matter, stating, “Moscow should recognize that the Ukrainian people, that these nearly 50 million people have the right to church independence to autocephaly.”

In general, the CP stays out of political matters, so this statement alone was seen as a major victory by many Ukrainians. The Patriarch’s words

became a reality when the autocephaly became official on January 5th.

The Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko was quick to make a political spectacle of the matter, calling the announcement of the new autocephalous Patriarch “the day of the final independence from Russia” Given that the conflict in eastern Ukraine is still ongoing, President Poroshenko might have spoken too soon, especially considering that the conflict extended into the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait at the end of November 2018. Russian forces attacked and arrested sailors in these waters that are supposed to be shared between Ukraine and Russia.

Additionally, attempts to resolve the conflict, such as the Minsk agreements, have con-

sistently failed even with involvement from the United Nations and other countries from around the world. Unfortunately, for the many Ukrainians who fear for their lives or have been displaced from their homes, there does not seem to be an end in sight.

Yet, the loss of the UOC-MP indisputably undermines President Putin’s reach in Ukraine.

Even though he has made it clear that he wants to reunite the Soviet Union, he has no legal physical hold on territory outside of Russia. His only hold existed through the ROC-MP. Now, the question remains, how will President Putin respond? Will he intensify the military deployed in Ukraine or has he already set a response in motion with the events that occurred in the Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait?☐

Source: Publicdomainpicutres.net

, S E L C I T R A E R FOR MO @ E N I L N O S VISIT U G R O .

W E I V E R P C