CPR Winter 2019 (XVIII, 4)

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

WINTER 2019

Volume XVIII, No. 4

ALSO INSIDE: Learning from Lebanon pg. 16

A Mixed-Status Family is an American Family pg. 18

A REVOLUTION IN CUBAN MUSIC? pg. 7

MASTHEAD & EDITOR’S NOTE

Editor-in-Chief

Isabelle Harris

Publisher

Celine Bacha

ManagingEditors

Benjamin Sachs

Alex Siegal

Hannah Wyatt

Senior Editors

Rachel Barkin

Jasleen Chaggar

Ramsay Eyre

Henry Feldman

Aja Johnson

Jodi Lessner

Helen Sayegh

CopyEditors

Zachary Becker

John David Cobb

Ellie Gaughan

Shomik Ghose

Op-Ed StaffWriters

Olivia Choi

Sarah DeSouza

Sophia Houdaigui

Kathrine Malus

Jungwoo Park

Pallavi Sreedhar

Raya Tarawneh

Ariadne Xenopoulos

Feature StaffWriters

Dear Reader,

Aryeh Hajibay-Piranesi

Annabel Kelly

Grace Protasiewicz

Emily Ringel

Jake Tibbetts

Eleanor Katharine Yeo

CoverArt/Graphics

Mwandeyi Kamwendo

Cameron Adkins

Maria Castillo

Stella Cavedon

Devyani Goel

Kris Jenvaiyavasjamai

Heather Loepere

Diana Valcarcel

Charlie Wallace

Ayse Yucesan

This is my last issue as Editor-in-Chief of the Columbia Political Review. Helping to build this magazine has been one of the greatest pleasures of my undergraduate career. The writers, editors, and senior staff of this publication serve as a constant reminder that the challenges our generation faces will be met by exceptionally talented and passionate people. I thank each and every one of them for making my time at CPR so transformative.

I spent most of my time in college studying the American Civil War and Reconstruction. Having one foot in the politics of the past and the other in the politics of the present has given me hope that what seems to be politically impossible can become possible far more quickly than we would imagine. As we navigate impeachment, climate change, an impending refugee crisis, and mass protests abroad, I encourage you to keep this in mind.

In this issue, we sample some of these changes. Jungwoo Park and Pallavi Sreedhar both tackle the question of free speech online—Park scrutinizes Facebook’s policies, while Sreedhar analyzes a policy shift at Twitter. Our cover article by Diana Valcárcel Soler examines the fragile and shifting relationship between Cuba and its musicians, and recent changes under President Díaz-Canel. Maria Castillo challenges nativists’ monolithic rhetorical image of the “American Family” with the counterexample of modern, equally American mixed-status families.

Though I will no longer be at the helm of this magazine, I can say with confidence that, as the world continues to change, CPR will be here to cover it. I can’t wait to see what they do.

– Belle Harris, Editor-in-Chief

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

COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW

3: Facebook Fundamentally Misunderstands Free Speech

by Jungwoo Park

5: Can We Support Free Speech and Curb Misinformation at the Same Time?

by Pallavi Sreedhar

7: Will Cuba Tear Down the Wall Around its Musicians?

by Diana Valcárcel Soler

11: Why Did Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed of Ethiopia Win the Nobel Peace Prize?

By Charlie Wallace

Winter 2019

Volume XVIII, No. 4

13: The Failures of Refugee Camps in Europe by

Stella Cavedon

16: Learning from Lebanon

by Raya Tarawneh

18: A Mixed-Status Family is an American Family by Maria

Castillo

FACEBOOK FUNDAMENTALLY MISUNDERSTANDS FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Last Thursday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg delivered a speech at Georgetown University adamantly declaring that his company is a protector of free speech and democracy. He emphasized Facebook’s commitment towards “giving everyone a voice” and insisted that social networks should not censor news coverage and politicians’ posts. This speech was Zuckerberg’s latest defense of Facebook’s contentious community standard policies that have been widely criticized for categorizing false information as protected free speech. Facebook’s refusal to remove disinformation off of its platform is nothing but a phony, neutral posture of defending First Amendment rights, reflecting a fundamental misconception of freedom of speech.

Facebook’s platform has been used as a controversial force in global politics for the last decade. During the 2016 United States presidential election, Russian intelligence officers used Facebook, and its photo-sharing application

Instagram, to propagate a disinformation campaign that manipulated and divided the American electorate. Last year, members of the Myanmar military launched a propaganda campaign over Facebook to incite the ethnic cleansing of the country’s Muslim Rohingya minority group. Leading up to the 2020 presidential election, the American public is already beginning to witness the powerful influence Facebook holds over political coverage. After Facebook officially

respect for the democratic process.”

declared that politicians’ speech is exempt from their fact-checking and decency standards, Donald Trump’s reelection campaign posted a video ad falsely accusing Joe Biden of having used his power as vice president to threaten Ukraine into halting their investigation of his son Hunter Biden. Facebook denied the Biden campaign’s request to take down the misleading video and responded that the decision was “grounded in Facebook’s fundamental belief in free expression,

What is frustrating, however, is that Facebook has been quietly taking down political ads this entire time. Buzzfeed News investigated the platform’s ad library and discovered that in the first half of October, Facebook censored more than 160 ads posted by the presidential candidates Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Tom Steyer, and Donald Trump for a variety of reasons— from profanity to broken links. Facebook reveals its priorities by cracking down on broken links but sits idly by while millions of Americans consume false political information. Zuckerberg also refuses to acknowledge that an open platform does not necessarily provide a user with equal access to different opinions. An individual’s Facebook feed is not a chronological timeline of content but rather a highly specific group of posts curated by an algorithm designed to maximize the user’s engagement. These algorithms tend to create “echo chambers” of information by only showing posts from users’ like-minded friends and media sources aligned with their political

Jungwoo Park

“Freedom of speech—the inalienable right of an individual to express their opinion without retaliation—is inherently biased because some forms of speech will intevitably silence others.”

preference. Around 45 percent of American adults use Facebook as their primary news source, granting the company a staggering amount of power over the political content consumed in this country.

Facebook’s vast influence comes with an equally large amount of responsibility to ensure politicians do not openly lie to the public. Zuckerberg has argued that “people should be able to see for themselves what politicians are saying,” but there is a clear difference between politicians sharing their opinions and Facebook accepting money from political campaigns to promote ads that intentionally mislead and polarize voters. This problem stems from Facebook’s failure to grasp the fundamental concept of free speech. Freedom of speech—the inalienable right of an individual to express their opinion without

retaliation—is inherently biased because some forms of speech will inevitably silence others. Zuckerberg does acknowledge that individuals “shouldn’t be able to say things that put people in danger,” however, he does not commit to creating a level playing field where one person’s opinion cannot dominate. If Facebook allows discriminatory speech, minority groups are overpowered, and conversely, if the company condemns hate speech, racist people cannot freely express their opinions. Therefore, it is impossible to protect all voices equally; Facebook must decide which forms of speech to allow on its platform. Zuckerberg cannot take a hands-off approach to regulating disinformation and discriminatory content when it encourages hatred and violence.

As Facebook becomes more intertwined with the current political

climate, Zuckerberg is in an admittedly unenviable position of having to set the standard for online public discourse. Last Monday, the company disclosed that it had removed four foreign interference operations from Iran and Russia, including one that specifically targeted the 2020 presidential election. Facebook also announced last month its plan to establish the Oversight Board, an independent, global panel of judges who will hear appeals from users and review Facebook’s policy decisions. It is worth questioning whether judges paid by Facebook can be unbiased in their evaluations of company policies, but these latest efforts seem like a step in the right direction. Nevertheless, Facebook must reevaluate its philosophical approach to ensuring freedom of speech and consider how a neutral stance can create a harmful environment for its users. ☐

CAN WE SUPPORT FREE SPEECH AND CURB MISINFORMATION AT THE SAME TIME?

Pallavi Sreedhar

The CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, announced on October 30 that Twitter would be banning all political advertising, including both candidate endorsements and messaging about political issues. Dorsey stated that the company will share its final policy by November 15 and will start enforcing the policy starting November 22. Dorsey explained through Twitter, “Internet political ads present entirely new challenges to civic discourse: machine learning-based optimization of messaging and micro-targeting, unchecked misleading information, and deep fakes.” Dorsey felt the need to entirely ban political advertisements instead of simply eliminating misinformation because he feels that the company “needs to focus [its] efforts on the root problems, without the additional burden and complexity taking money brings.”

Twitter’s recent ban has been highly controversial. While some argue that the policy is an attack

on free speech that should be repudiated, others suggest that Facebook should follow Twitter’s lead in attempting to stamp out misinformation. Interestingly, the debate doesn’t break down neatly along partisan lines. While Democrats such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Elizabeth Warren have attacked Facebook for continuing to run false political ads, there are aspects of a ban on political ads that would harm Democratic causes as well.

Indeed, The Intercept, a left-leaning media company, published an article arguing that a Facebook ban on political ads would be a major blow to the left, citing Ocasio-Cortez’s social media-based campaign as evidence. The article points out that Ocasio-Cortez’s rise to office was fueled by a combination of on-theground organizing and targeted political ads on Facebook. Opponents of a ban on political ads purport that the ban would hinder grassroots political movements such as Ocasio-Cortez’s, favoring incumbent candidates whose office provides them ample oppor-

tunity for promotion.

According to The Intercept, the organization that backed Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign recruited volunteers, identified donors, built an email list, and created a support base all through targeted Facebook ads. Dorsey’s response to the use of Twitter for similar grassroots political movements echoed his statement in the Tweets announcing the ban: “We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought.” However, this philosophy gives incumbent candidates a nearly insurmountable advantage, since they already have a wide-reaching political platform.

In addition to acting as a tool for insurgent candidates like Ocasio-Cortez, targeted advertisements also support progressive causes such as climate change and Planned Parenthood. Twitter’s ban on political advertisements will include issue advertisements in addition to campaign advertisements. For example, Twitter will ban advertisements on climate change—but the resulting catch is that they will still be allowing

big oil companies to, say, advertise their products. Could there be a better way to address the issue of misinformation in political ads?

A compelling argument by the chair of the Federal Election Commission, Ellen Weintraub, provides a middle-ground solution: banning microtargeting of political ads rather than banning political ads writ-large. In a Washington Post op-ed, Weintraub argues that microtargeting, which is the “limiting of the scope of an ad’s distribution to precise people,” contributes to misinformation because of the limited accountability that results from targeted advertisements.

In the 2016 election, microtargeting was used by both foreign and domestic actors to spread misinformation and help Trump get elected. Weintraub argues that the “counterspeech doctrine,” which posits that the proper response to negative speech is positive expression, is limited through microtargeting. In this case, the counterspeech doctrine means that misinformation would be countered by factual evidence, but this can only be done if the false political ads are visible to the general public and not a targeted few. Eliminating microtargeting’s use in political advertising, therefore, would enhance accountability and flush out disinformation. In her article, Weintraub provides Internet advertisers with the rule of thumb that they could only target groups “no more than one political level below the election”. For example, the most specif-

ic groups that ads for a city council election could target are council districts.

What makes Weintraub’s case so compelling is that it implicitly acknowledges both the benefits and costs of political advertisements. Weintraub’s rule of thumb does not ban targeting entirely, but does partly regulate it. Thus, insurgent candidates such as Ocasio-Cortez would still be able to use social media as a means of gaining a voter base. Weintraub’s argument similarly does not suggest banning political issue advertisements but does suggest that they be disseminated to an audience large enough for people to engage in discussion and debate.

Although a ban on microtargeting would not stop mis -

information entirely, it would greatly reduce it without losing the benefits of broader political targeting. Weintraub’s plan is therefore a savvy alternative to the extremes put forward by Facebook and Twitter, with the former refusing to police political advertisements at all and the latter banning political advertisements entirely. Spreading misinformation through microtargeting does not constitute free speech if the speech is not put forth to the general public to be debated and discussed. Microtargeting allows for false political ads to be distributed only to people who might be receptive to the message, disallowing any potential oppositional responses.

Microtargeting only reinforces online echo chambers, which ultimately harm our democracy by stymying discourse. In order to combat misinformation in political advertisements without negating the benefits of targeted political advertisements, we should follow Ellen Weintraub’s advice and ban microtargeting in political campaigns as an effective middle ground.

WILL CUBA TEAR DOWN THE WALL AROUND ITS MUSICIANS?

Diana Valcárcel Soler

My grandma, Yaya, used to tell me stories of her brothers screwing wires into the ground to hear American music, hidden from the secret police, in a scene that could very well be out of a dystopian young adult novel. Long hair, cowboy boots, listening to jazz—all could be crimes against the state in the early years of the Castro regime in Cuba. She would tell me these stories in the backyard when I was a kid, speaking quietly, as if she were still living within the impermeable cell walls of the island.

Her memories of Cuba under Castro is why she loved Willy Chirino. The Cuban exile and musician expressed his artistic practice in this way:

“Yo me siento inspirado y un son estoy cantando, anunciándole a todos mis hermanos que nuestro día ya viene llegando.

“I feel inspired, so a son [classically Cuban genre] I am singing, announcing to all of my siblings that our day is coming.”

Chirino is the voice of many frustrated Cuban-Americans, who, with desperate loyalty, cling to the vision of a free Cuba—the day that is coming. The day when Cuba would finally be free, and Willy Chirino could return.

For some, that day has already come. Nearly seven years ago, a ban was silently uplifted across Cuban radio stations. The music of famed anti-Castro rebels would be played at last—that of Celia Cruz, Gloria Estefan, and, yes, Willy Chirino. According to the BBC, government officials told radio disc jockeys that the blacklist of artists was outdated and had served its purpose. Now, it was time for Cuba to open its doors.

So maybe that wall is being torn down. But are musicians protesting the government truly free today, or is there still a robust regime suppressing their expression? Will President Díaz-Canel actually tear down this wall that separates Cuba from the rest of the musical world?

Only parts, it seems. While the music of past dissenters gets radio time, a new Orwellian decree prevents contemporary protesters from reaching a wide audience, showing that Cuba still has a long way to go in freeing its musicians.

To find the roots of this censorship regime, we can go back to 1976, when Cuba, under Castro’s autocratic rule, approved a new constitution. Here are some highlights from Chapter 4, Article 38, Section 2:

d) Artistic creation can be freely expressed, as long as its content is not contrary to the Revolution. The

forms of expression in art are free;

e) The State, to the end of elevating the culture of the people, is in charge of elevating and developing artistic education, the vocation involved in its creation, and the cultivation of art and the capacity of appreciating it.”

In line with its stated purpose of “elevating the culture of the people,” the Castro government introduced a robust program to support the production of music as propaganda. Its first step was to create institutions that would make mass-music production possible. Cuba promised free musical education and guaranteed salaries and housing for the most prominent musicians--all of whom abided by the Orwellian constitution, of course. As a result, music crafted and supported from the inside—nueva trova—was especially appealing to any young hopefuls looking for a future.

The idea of the state elevating the culture of the people was fundamental not only to Castro, but to the beliefs of his fellow revolutionaries. For instance, Che Guevara— the Argentinian doctor-turned-revolutionary-murderer affectionately referred to as “el Ché” by a certain strain of academics—insisted the new order was to be “socialism with pachanga [a street party with Latin music].” Knowing that music and

song were, and are, instrumental to the Cuban sociocultural fabric, he aimed to turn them into tools of conscious propaganda that would serve as powerful mobilizing factors in rebellion and revolution. This idea would manifest most notably in Silvio Rodríguez’s government-backed songs in support of Cuba’s revolutionary achievements, especially in Nicaraguan communist propaganda. Take Betto Arcos’ perspective on Silvio’s song, a classic revolutionary anthem:

“[Silvio Rodriguez’s “Te Doy Una Canción”] is a song that is an anthem, and it became an anthem all over Cuba, all over Latin America because it says I give you a song, my homeland. I give you a song with the hands that kill, with the hands that give you a guerilla, with the hands that work day to day. This is someone that was deeply immersed into the revolutionary culture of Castro, and he sang the songs of the revolution.”

–Betto Arcos, on an NPR Podcast on “The Birth Of ‘Nueva Trova Cubana’ And Other Music Styles In Castro’s Cuba”

Despite its eventual embrace of music like Silvio Rodriguez’s, the Cuban government initially regarded nueva trova with skepticism, even jailing a major proponent of the style, Pablo Milanés, for “insubordination” in 1967. But by the early ’70s, nueva trova was institutionalized and supported by the state.

When Yoruba (Cuban Afro-Catholic religious music, santería) was legalized by Castro in 1959, it was viewed as an explicit upholding of the tenet of natural equality, which is fundamental to communist ideology. It rendered Castro’s initial legalization of histor-

ically African music into a genuine move toward a racially-egalitarian society. Of course, it could also be seen as a reaction against what Castro saw as the inherently racist system of imperial capitalism associated with Cuba’s American foes. For these reasons, government-supported agencies like the Casa de las Americas had mandates to research and preserve uniquely Afro-Cuban musical traditions, as well as support the nueva trova. The Ministry of Culture also tried to elevate the rumba, once a street dance of the mainly black working class first developed in the nineteenth century slums of Havana and Matanzas, into a truly national dance through formal training for performers.

Like nueva trova, Yoruba music was originally viewed with ambivalence. Over time, with its eventual incorporation into musical curricula and government-sponsored stages, the styles were legitimized. The new constitution also raised these styles’ profile; Yoruba only became acceptable when the government took it upon itself to elevate traditional Cuban music.

Fidel Castro not only created an entire institution behind music-as-propaganda, he intensely embraced music in his speeches. In an infamous 1961 address, Castro spoke out about the rights (or lack thereof) of artists and musicians at Cuba’s national library, stating, “What are revolutionary and non-revolutionary writers’ and artists’ rights? Under the revolution: everything; against the revolution, none.” The Castro regime made it clear that revolutionary music was integral to the revolutionary agenda.

While pro-government music

was given a platform in Cuba, subversive music was silenced. With few exceptions, Cuba viewed emigrating Cuban musicians as defectors and gusanos (worms), banning both their music and the formal study of it within Cuba.

This ban included, of course, the music of Celia Cruz, the Queen of Salsa. In the early 1960’s, Celia was touring with La Sonora in Mexico when Fidel Castro and his regime came to power. All but one band member refused to go back to Cuba under those political conditions, which led Castro to issue a lifetime ban on their entry into the country. In 1962, after Celia’s mother passed of cancer, she attempted to return but was not granted government permission.

After her death in 2003, the national Cuban newspaper Granma reported her death in a mere two-sentence obituary:

“Durante las últimas cuatro décadas se mantuvo sistemáticamente activa en las campañas contra la Revolución Cubana generadas desde Estados Unidos, por lo que fue utilizada como ícono por el enclave contrarrevolucionario del Sur de la Florida.”

“During her last four decades she maintained herself systematically active in the campaigns against the Cuban Revolution generated from the United States, acts for which she was utilized as an icon for the counterrevolutionary enclave in South Florida.”

Thirty-seven studio albums, two Grammy Awards, three Latin Grammy Awards, and a Guinness World Record for Longest Working Career as a Salsa Artist were all reduced to nothing by the government-sponsored national newspa-

per.

To Castro, Celia Cruz was only another “ideological diversionism”, a distraction from his authoritarian project. That’s how Fidel baptized the cultural phenomena that occurred outside his sphere of influence, and, consequently, at the periphery of his small island of approval. The early years saw the most stringent censorship. That’s the time through which my grandma lived, when her brothers listened with their ears pressed against the ground, wanting more than anything to know what was going on. Celia wasn’t the only one banned in this era. Major Cuban artists who showed express distaste for the tyrannical power would be banned from returning—Olga Guillot, Rolando Lecuona, Paquito D’Rivera, Arturo Sandoval, Willy Chirino— even though their music wasn’t nearly as abrasive as their speech. Their return to radio stations would only be allowed after the lift of the ban.

With the lift of the ban, these artists’ work joined the traditional music that was seen as quintessentially Cuban, that music that had been allowed and supported by government-funded institutions. But what does the government say about reggaetón and other contemporary youth genres?

Reggaetón is a Carribbean fusion of rap, hip-hop, and Latin styles. In Latin America, rap and hip-hop emerged during the 1990s as vehicles for “cultural exchange and even detente.” Some 500 rap groups are found in Cuba, and by 2000 there had been several visits by Cuban rappers to the U.S., as well as visits by progressive American rappers to the island. The development of Cuban rap seems to paral-

lel several other Latin American rap movements, all of which emphasize awareness about underlying social problems.

The government found rap and reggaetón categeorically vulgar and demeaning because of their overtly sexual lyrics and banned them in 2012. Though in some ways the restrictions have eased up in the years since, Cuba still prohibits reggaetón artists from appearing on most state-run TV and radio and from recording in state-run studios.

In light of these preexistent rules, the recent announcement of Decree 349 in July 2018—one of the first actions made by President Diaz-Canel—was declared by the Artists At Risk Connection as particularly dangerous. Under the decree, “all artists, including collectives, musicians and performers, are prohibited from operating in public or private spaces without prior approval by the Ministry of Culture”. The public order offenses under Title IV (many of which could in theory be applied to musical production or performance) are blatantly opposed to true freedom of expression. Title IV also gives authorities power to shut down artistic activity if they feel something contains “sexist, vulgar or obscene language.” As usual, when it comes to legislation restricting freedom of speech, the broader it is, the more restrictive it is. A popular Cuban rapper, Pipo, is a victim of this censorship. His brutal arrest this year may have been a result of its strict enforcement.

Because reggaetón is not “elevated” art cultivated in institutions when compared to Yoruba music for example, it is seen as subversive of the regime,

and not worthy of display on the national stage. This sort of suppression is most explicitly represented in recent Cuban censorship with Decree 349. Though the uplift has allowed oldschool Cuban music to return (the kind that is not overtly anti-Castro) the Decree prevents contemporary music like reggaetón from fully flourishing.

The president of the Cuban Music Institute, Orlando Vistel Columbié, spoke in its defense. He told the official Cuban government newspaper Granma in 2012:

“Neither vulgarity, nor mediocrity, will be able to obscure the richness of cuban music … We refer to pseudoartistic music, the kind that has nothing to do with our society’s ethics.”

He goes on to say, “Del son y la salsa al jazz y de la canción y la rumba...Esa es la verdad de la música y de los músicos cubanos.” (“Of a son and salsa and jazz and of song and rumba … These speak truly to music and Cuban musicians.”) As much as Vistel insists it does not, this sentiment replicates the elitism of Cuba’s past. While older styles, such as salsa, have been set free, the newer styles crafted by young people have been met with extreme opposition. This contradiction reveals a great chasm between what the officials say and what is actually happening. In reality, these restrictions are no attempt at moralizing the Cuban people, but an effort to limit what the Cuban people can hear. It’s yet another implementation of the same principles outlined in Castro’s 1976 constitution.

Cuban government officials scrambled with this new subversive genre at its advent. In an at-

tempt to “heighten” it, as they did with Yoruba, they formed the Cuban Rap Agency, or CRA, as a way to deal with urban music on the island. Musicians in a genre with dissent at its root were, of course, unhappy. One Cuban rapper said, “When the Cuban Rap Agency has to make a decision, whose interests are they going to protect? The government’s? Or hip-hop’s?”

In 2018, Vice Minister of Culture Fernando Rojas gave an interview in Havana and said that he accepted the “well-intentioned criticisms of Cuba’s artistic community,” but that protests “were part of wider, foreign-backed scheme to destabilize the country by damaging the image of its cultural institutions.” So yes, the Cuban Rap Agency was going to protect the government’s interests. Not hip-

hop’s. And not reggaetón’s.

In a supposedly new regime under President Díaz-Canel, old patterns nevertheless return. Artists who dare to skirt the edges of the island, beyond the boxes of censorship, are punished. The difference this time is that modernity and the internet make total censorship far more difficult. If pictures hadn’t surfaced, we wouldn’t have heard of Pipo’s brutal arrest. There, perhaps, is a semblance of hope.

It is difficult to say if the day will come when Cuban music will be completely free. For Willy Chirino and upholders of classic Cuban tradition, that day of returning may be much sooner than once expected. For reggaetoneros, whose voices of dissent are overt, that day may be far away. ☐

“Una revolución no envía a jóvenesinjustoaprisión Tampococensuraalosperiodistasindependientes O a los artistas contestatarios de la televisión Respetadecadapersona suopinión Eso es una revolución.”

“A revolution does not send young people unjustly to prison Neither does it censor independent journalists Nor contesting artists on television

It respects the opinion of every person That is a revolution.”

–Pupito’s lyrics, from a September 2, 2019 interview with 14ymedio while he was in prison

WHY DID PRIME MINISTER ABIY AHMED OF ETHIOPIA WIN THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE?

Successful trans-border conflict resolution has historically been an extremely common catalyst to win the Nobel Peace Prize. In 1998, John Hume of Ireland and David Trimble of the United Kingdom were awarded the Peace Prize for working to end a war. The same can be said of the 1994 cooperation between Palestinian Yasser Arafat and Israelis Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres. Muhmmad Anwar al-Sadat of Egypt and Menachem Begin of Israel were awarded the Peace Prize in 1978, as were Lê Đức Thọ of North Vietnam and Henry Kissinger of the United States in 1973. It is not shocking, then, that after quelling the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Abiy Ahmed. Interestingly, the Nobel committee unilaterally awarded the Peace Prize to Ahmed, excluding Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki.

What Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s accomplished in a mere year and half is awe-inspiring. Eritrea and Ethiopia had been marred in a border conflict from 1998 until the signing of the “Joint Declaration of Peace and

Friendship between Ethiopia and Eritrea” on September 17th, 2018. This twenty-year war claimed 100,000 lives and resulted in the suspension of all air-service between the two countries, the disconnection of phone lines, as well as the separation of many families between the two nations. The Joint Declaration restarted air service, re-opened the phone lines, and reunited families. Prime Minister Ahmed even unconditionally returned the town of Badme to Eritrea after sixteen years ignoring the Hague’s decision that Eritrea’s claim to the disputed border region was stronger.

On the domestic front, Prime Minister Ahmed offered pardons and amnesty to thousands of political opponents that had been branded as terrorists. Media organizations were granted broader freedom in reporting and reform councils were started to review laws that had been used for repressing political and civil rights. Ahmed lifted a state of emergency and promoted gender reform by selecting women to hold positions in a historically male-dominanted cabinet.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister’s reforms have also reignited ethnic violence across the country. With this rapid liberal-

ization, Ethiopia appears to be on a crash course to become the world’s next Yugoslavia. Ethiopia is home to 110 million people, 80 ethnic groups, and 86 actively spoken languages; in short, it is a diverse giant. Ethiopia’s nine federal states were drawn to offer territorial autonomy to large ethnic groups. Yet Ethnic rivalries have caused 2.9 million Ethiopians to be internally displaced, the highest number of internally displaced people in the world. The divisiveness of Ethiopian politics was clearly displayed in June of 2019 when an attempted coup occurred in the Northern Amhara Region.

Ahmed, the leader who has been internationally lauded for his improvements in the arena of free speech and political rights, suddenly reverted the country back to its old habits. The internet was completely shut off for six days and carried out mass arrests throughout the country. Unfortunately, this wasn’t the first time the Prime Minister hit the killswitch on the country’s internet. Within the month following the restoration of internet connection after the coup, the internet was inexplicably shut down several times, and full access to Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram

Charlie Wallace

had not been returned. When the internet kill-switch is employed, the populace is effectively rendered dependent on state media for updates about the coup.

Since the peace deal, there has been tangible backtrack on the Prime Minister’s record. Large border crossings, such as Zalambessa, were opened with grand celebrations following the Peace Deal. They were quickly shut down again. The Eritrean Embassy that was promised to be reopened remains closed, with no progress thus far. One day before the Nobel Prize was awarded, Ahmed held an event called “Medemer,” meaning inclusivity and togetherness in Amharic, with neighboring nations. Uganda, Somalia, and Sudan all sent representatives for the talks. But there was a notable absence of Eritrean President Afewerki and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al Sisi.

While hopeful talks with Eritrea have completely stagnated, a new trans-border conflict involving Ethiopia is brewing. Ethiopia plans to build a massive dam named the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, near the border with Ethiopia. This dam would further deplete Egypt’s access to the Nile River Waters that it so desperately needs. There has been a dramatic rise in bellicose rhetoric, with Prime Minister Ahmed threatening that he “could muster an army of a million men to defend the dam.” Ahmed’s statements led to a quick rebuke from Egyptian officials. The head of Egypt’s Parliament Defense and Security Committee told journalists that he would “authorize President Abdel Fattah al Sisi

to declare war on Addis Ababa.”

Domestically, Prime Minister Ahmed is facing even more challenges. On October 25, 2019, just weeks after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, the rapidly worsening Balkanization came to a head. 67 people died in anti-Ahmed protests and 200 were injured after a vocal critic of the Prime Minister, Jawar Mohammed, accused Ahmed of plotting an assassination attempt against him. Bloody protests erupted in the cities of Addis Ababa, Harar, and Ambo. There has been sharp criticism from domestic sources about Ahmed’s handling of the crisis: the Prime Minister decided to stay in Russia and said nothing to calm domestic anxiety surrounding the event.

Critics from around the globe have protested Ahmed’s selection for the Nobel Peace Prize, claiming the presentation is premature in light of the absence of much tangible progress since his ascension to power in 2018. The Nobel Committee’s press release even said, “No doubt some people will think this year’s prize is being awarded too early.” And a nominator of Ahmed for the Peace Prize, Awol K Allo, commented that he “nominated him partly because I view the Nobel Peace Prize as a call to action - a prestigious award that would give Abiy the moral authority to redouble his effort.” These claims appear to go against the will of Alfred Nobel, as outlined by the criterion for the Prize: it should be awarded “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for

the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” Nowhere does it, even remotely, imply that the Prize and its associated one million dollars should be used as an incentive to do further work.

There is worry that the Nobel Committee is attempting to tip the scales in Ethiopia’s hotly-contested upcoming elections. Ahmed was first made head of the governing coalition, the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front, when Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn stepped down from office and has still yet to win a national popular vote. The premature awarding of the Nobel Prize could be seen as the broader international community attempting to sway domestic Ethiopian politics rather than permitting them to reflect the will of the Ethiopian people.

While Prime Minister Ahmed’s domestic strides are impressive and deserve recognition, he does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize at this point. This year, the Nobel Peace Prize was given prematurely because there have yet to be true results from his efforts with Eritrea. In addition, Ahmed has reverted, in some ways, back to a style of leadership he previously condemned--he repeatedly used the internet kill-switch when convenient and quelled protests by authorizing violence perpetrated by his security forces. The Nobel Prize, by definition, should not be used to incentivize a leader to do something that the larger international committee hopes will be accomplished in the leader’s country, nor should it be used to sway upcoming elections by taking away the self-determination of the country’s populace.☐

THE FAILURES OF REFUGEE CAMPS IN EUROPE

Stella Cavedon

In 2015, more than 900,000 starved and frightened refugees arrived on the shores of Greece. The European refugee crisis is not a new phenomenon but the number of people seeking safety has escalated significantly since 2015, the majority coming from Syria, Afghanistan, and Turkey. Many of these refugees are escaping the Syrian Civil War, the second deadliest conflict of the 21st century, and were unable to enter neighboring Arab countries without proper legal documentation. Decade-long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have also forced millions of people to cross the Mediterranean Sea to escape violence and oppression. Europe is their best option for survival.

The European Union, a political and economic group of 28 countries, does not have a stable or systematic approach to assist this influx of people.

The Common European Asylum System, an initiative that began in 1999, distinguishes migrants into two categories: “refugees” and “economic migrants.” Refugees are people escaping from war, natural disaster, or persecution from a political entity. Economic migrants, on the

other hand, have relocated for economic opportunity and are not in immediate danger. Under this system, EU states are legally required to accept all migrants that qualify for refugee status. If states violate this law, they can either defend their decision in the European Court of Human Rights or leave the EU.

The Dublin Regulation, the core procedure of CEAS, requires the first country that a migrant enters to process their application for refugee status. A migrant cannot submit applications to multiple states and must

stay within the first country they entered until their application is approved. Greece, Spain, and Italy hold the disproportionate burden of accepting larger quantities of illegal migrants due to their geographical location. This year, out of the 34,000 migrants seeking asylum in Europe, 16,292 entered in Greece, 12,064 in Spain, and 3,186 in Italy. While migrants wait to be processed by their host country, they are sheltered in state facilities called “refugee camps.” The EU has raised the standards for the living conditions within the camps but most states have failed to implement these reforms. The management of the facilities is often corrupt and financially incapable of providing basic necessities for asylum seekers. The EU has allowed this mistreatment of refugees to continue by failing to pursue disciplinary action against countries providing inadequate living conditions. In fact, most refugee camps do not even meet the

“[M]ost refugee camps do not even meet the basic legal requirements; and yet, little to nothing has been done to implement change. ”

basic legal requirements; and yet, little to nothing has been done to implement change.

Refugee Camps in Greece

Since 2015, one million people migrating from Turkey have applied for refugee status in Greece. In 2016, Greece and Turkey signed the EU-Turkey Statement, an agreement that Greece would send migrants not approved for refugee status back to Turkey. After the statement was enacted, Greece created the Moria refugee camp on the island of Lesbos, assuming it would be the ideal location for temporary asylum seekers. The Greek government did not anticipate that 14,000 refugees would be living in a space created for 3,000 individuals.

Migrants from Turkey, Egypt, and Libya are crammed into small, inhospitable spaces and forced to wait more than 12 hours in line for food that is often spoiled. There is one show-

er and one toilet for every 70 to 80 refugees. Numerous accusations of sexual assault and knife attacks have been made by residents, but no investigations or disciplinary actions have been pursued. The lead psychiatric doctor is overwhelmed with cases of mental illness and has prescribed the majority of his patients with antipsychotic medication. Over one quarter of the children living in the camp have contemplated suicide.

Earlier this month, a protest erupted at the Moria camp after a refugee died in a violent fire and two children were killed. Moria has become a “death trap” instead of a safe haven from war, starvation, and abuse.

Refugee Camps in Germany

When migrants first arrive in Germany, they are placed in “holding and processing centers” that are hotbeds for disease and violence. The Fürstenfeldbruck center, located near

Munich, has banned reporters from entering the premises. If media outlets wish to conduct interviews, they must meet the refugees outside of the center. A reporter from the state-owned network, Deutsche Welle, was able to conduct an interview with a group of refugees. The residents revealed that one toilet shared by 50 people, one room contains eight residents, and food is scarce. The doctor can only admit 70 patients per day and spends less than five minutes treating each individual.

When Deutsche Welle asked the Local Integration Commissioner if the center meets the legal standard of living, he answered that the facilities “are supposed to be uncomfortable and humiliating to motivate those who have no real need for protection to leave the country, preferably on their own accord.” The Town Councillor called the camp a “giant storage cupboard for human beings.” This “storage cupboard”

is intended to house people for a maximum of two years, but most migrants are forced to stay longer because they cannot enter another state without legal documentation or money.

Refugee Camps in Italy

Italy has protested the Dublin Regulation because the system places a disproportionate burden upon its economic resources in comparison to other European states. Prime Minister Matteo Salvini has closed multi-

you have any idea how much I make off of migrants? They’re more profitable than drugs.”

Salvini also left 1,500 refugees homeless by bulldozing the San Ferdinando camp located in Catania. He has failed to fulfill his promise to find an alternative shelter as refugees report living in abandoned houses on the countryside. Numerous camps across Italy have come to a similar end, leaving thousands of refugees unemployed and homeless.

longings. The Guardian reported an incident where French authorities stopped a mother from retrieving her own child. These evictions have caused over 1,300 refugees to cross the dangerous English Channel in an attempt to reach England.

The Grande-Synthe camp was opened in March 2019 to replace the Jungle Camp. Grande-Synthe may be an improvement from the Jungle, but the conditions are quickly deteriorating: 87% of refugees do not have access to

ple refugee camps because the state’s economy cannot sustain such a large influx of people.

Earlier this year, Salvini displaced hundreds of refugees by closing the Cara di Mineo camp, a breeding ground for corruption and organized criminal activities. The leaders of the camp stole public funds from Italy and the EU, and provided little to no support to the refugees. According to locals, both the Italian and the Nigerian Mafia made the camp their headquarters for drug operations. A man from Senegal reported that these gangs forced women to engage in sexual activities both inside and outside of the camp. The ring-leader for the Mafia Capitale, Salvatore Buzzi, was caught on wiretap boasting: “do

Refugee Camps in France

France has also closed camps to reduce their intake of refugees instead of improving the living conditions. In October 2016, the French government demolished the infamous “Jungle of Calais,” evicting over 8,000 refugees. Stefan Simanowitz from Amnesty International claims that “the demolition of the Jungle Camp did not end the plight of the refugees and migrants in Calais and things also got harder for those trying to help them.”

Two evictions of refugee families occur each week with sudden and unnecessary brutality. The police force enters tents without notice and secures a parameter to prevent refugees from taking their be -

toilets and over 50% are not adequately fed. Many refugees pay English smugglers to help them escape the camp. …

The European refugee crisis stems from the EU’s lack of financial means and political support to host the enormous amount of people entering the system each day. Immigrants of all ages are struggling to survive in a camp that promised them safety. The EU must resolve this crisis by enforcing better living conditions within refugee camps, increasing the speed of processing applications, and integrating refugees into their new states. Without the collective cooperation of all European states, significant and lasting progress will not be achieved.

“Two evictions of refugee families occur each week with sudden and unnecessary brutality...

These evictions have caused over 1,300 refugees to cross the dangerous English Channel in an attempt to reach England.”

LEARNING FROM LEBANON

Raya Tarawneh

Since October 17th, mass protests have taken Lebanon by storm in a manner that is unprecedented. These protests have been largely inclusive, and they are emblematic of the tenacity of the Lebanese people. Across cities, towns, and villages, citizens are taking to the streets to demand that their leaders step down. Rampant corruption per-

Lebanon’s enduring crisis. Lebanon has been suffering through a trash crisis since 2015, as landfills have been overflowing onto the streets and trash has barely been collected. A standoff in Parliament left the country without an acting president from May 2014 to October 2016. Power outages are the only consistent feature of Lebanese infrastructure. And, to address the elephant in the room: sectarianism continues to plague the country.

the allocation of power among rigidly defined religious groups since long before independence from France. The National Pact, an unwritten agreement which dictates that the president must be a Maronite Christian, the prime minister a Sunni Muslim, and the speaker of parliament a Shi’a Muslim, came into play at Lebanon’s 1943 declaration of independence. Despite officially recognizing eighteen different religious sects, Lebanon spent

petuated by a broken political system lies at the root of Lebanon’s problems, but the immediate impetus for the protests was a series of events that occurred in close proximity to each other: energy problems, a dollar shortage, an incompetently handled forest fire, and the final straw –– a WhatsApp tax, all against the backdrop of a financial crisis compounded by burgeoning government debt.

These recent events are the most recent manifestation of

In fact, it is this unprecedented absence of sectarianism that has made the current protests significant. As one Economist article puts it, perhaps Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s only accomplishment is that “he has united a factious country in disgust.”

Sectarianism—religiously rooted discrimination—constitutes an inalienable part of Lebanese history and permeates the country’s politics. Lebanon has been regarded as a “multiconfessional” state defined by

fifteen years of its history torn by protracted civil war between Maronite, Sunni, Shi’a, Alawi, Druze, and secular local actors, in addition to regional and international powers. Even the power-sharing agreement that brought the civil war to an end reinforced sectarian notions: the 1989 Taif Accords further institutionalized the role of sectarianism in government.

It is this stubborn, deeply ingrained sectarianism that complicates prospects of change. Even toppling Hariri’s government

“Yet, we must be careful not to undermine the mettle of the Lebanese people...the demonstrations have created a long overdue sense of cultural intimacy, uniting the fractious nation.”

cannot rectify this reality. This notion does not serve to absolve the politicians, many of whom are warlords that have profited from sectarianism. It is merely to say that protestors face the challenge of an political system that is deeply entrenched. As the Arab Spring has shown, enacting substantive and meaningful change in any country is difficult. In Lebanon, it can be likened to walking on eggshells: the precarious question of who will fill the power vacuum that will exist if the government is toppled is worrisome. Dismantling a fragile political system in a country like Lebanon must therefore be gradual and involve substantive, structural change. The shift away from a self-serving, corrupt govern-

ment to a progressive, functional one cannot occur overnight.

Yet, we must be careful not to undermine the mettle of the Lebanese people, who have carried their country’s flag above their many sectarian banners. That the protests have remained leaderless is perhaps their greatest strength. Irrespective of the means by which change can or should be enacted, the protesters have done enough by acknowledging that there is no longer room for the status quo to persist and by simply putting pressure on the current regime, both of which prompted Prime Minister Hariri’s resignation. Even more so, the demonstrations have created a long overdue sense of cultural intimacy,

uniting the fractious nation. Indeed, protestors have literally transcended the divides that plagued the 2005 Cedar Revolution: they formed an actual human chain from the north to the south of the country as a symbol of unity. They are fighting a cause that is decidedly non-sectarian.

Nearly three weeks since they ignited, it is imperative that the Lebanese protests do not lose momentum. Sustainable change requires patience and persistence. Perhaps there is a middle ground to be found between diving headfirst into the deep waters of the unknown and remaining in the muddy shallows of the current system. Let Lebanon be the first nation in the Levant to prove it can be done. ☐

A MIXED-STATUS FAMILY IS AN AMERICAN FAMILY

In the contemporary immigration debate, the idea of the “American Family” is commonly weaponized, evoked in arguments by Republican politicians in favor of stricter and harsher policies. The American Family, as the narrative goes, must be protected and defended by nativist, xenophobic, and anti-immigrant policies that restrict the rights and protections held by the undocumented community. As immigration policy has been a key issue within the Democratic primary––and will surely be a contentious issue in the general election––it is critical for Democrats to debunk the baseless and underinclusive vignette of the American Family that Republicans fabricate when discussing immigration policy. In order for the immigration debate to become fairer and more honest, we must first reject that American Family mythos. Undocumented immigrants aren’t only the neighbors, family friends, or acquaintances of members of the American Family—they are active members of the American Family.

Implicit in the structure of the so-called American Family are two distinct populations within American society: U.S. citizens and undocumented immigrants. Each population is presented as a perfectly-cut square box, wholly separate from the other population. Mixed-status families serve as a powerful reminder of just how blurred the lines separating those two populations are.

According to the Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare at the Immigration Law Center of Minnesota, a mixed-status family is defined as “a family with members of varying legal status.” These families may consist of members with any combination of legal status: the quintessential mixed-status family consists of undocumented parents and U.S.-born children, but that is certainly not the only variety of mixed-status family.

Republicans have established in their political arguments that to fight on behalf of undocumented immigrants is to actively fight against the interests and well-being of United States citizens. An example of the constructed dichotomy between these two populations

is an exchange during a debate between the two candidates in the 2018 U.S. Senate election in Texas. When asked about his stance on immigration reform during a 2018 debate—specifically in regard to support for people who qualify for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status—Senator Ted Cruz stated, “[My opponent] over and over seems to be fighting for illegal immigrants by supporting [immigration reform]; [he] is forgetting about millions of Americans. You know, Americans are dreamers also.”

Aside from existing as something that must be protected from undocumented immigrants, the American Family that Republicans create is a unit that is fundamentally supplanted and robbed by progressive policies such as sanctuary cities, legal aid for immigrants undergoing immigration hearings, and access to medical services for undocumented residents. There is a sophisticated ideology behind this school of thought, which is exemplified in an article published by The Heritage Foundation’s president, Kay Cole James, entitled “It’s Time for the Senate to Put Americans and Their Dreams First.” Regard-

Maria Castillo

ing the 2018 government shutdown over border wall funding, she writes, “Schumer and his liberal colleagues seem to prefer asking Americans to defer their dreams for those of illegals. Right now, there’s a teenage girl in Appalachia who dreams of a great education but sits in a school that isn’t delivering. A factory worker who dreams of regaining work that went overseas earlier this decade. An urban mom who dreams of health care for her son but has to wait in an overcrowded emergency room. These are dreamers all. And they’re Americans.” She uses similar language to Senator Ted Cruz, invoking the word “dreamers,” a term used to describe individuals who qualified and participated in the DACA program.

Donald Trump’s “America

First” anti-immigration policies is defined, in part, by an argument based on that same constructed dichotomy. His rhetoric surrounding the immigration debate is indelibly shaped by the assumptions underlying this dichotomy of citizens and non-citizens. When speaking about the goals he aims to achieve through his hardline immigration policies in his first State of the Union speech, Trump said, “Immigrant communities will also be helped by immigration policies that focus on the best interests of American workers and American families.” After identifying American Families as his priority, he subsequently calls for stricter enforcement policies and an elevated presence of border security agents. In the same breath, Trump goes on to justify

this hard-line approach towards immigration when he says, “As president of the United States, my highest loyalty, my greatest compassion, my constant concern is for America’s children…I want our youth to grow up to achieve great things.”

This rhetoric creates a dynamic in which the American Families and American Children that he references are threatened by and distant from the undocumented population in the United States. This line of thought, aside from being profoundly xenophobic, racist, and factless, ignores the reality of populations that are located somewhere in between these two polar opposites of the spectrum.

When a politician references American Families and American Children, whom are they

referencing? Which families and children are sketched into their portrait of the Americans whom they are protecting and valuing in the immigration debate?

In total, there are four million U.S.-born children who have undocumented parents, directly challenging the premise of a large separation between American citizens and undocumented immigrants. This also refutes the portrait many politicians create of whom American Families and American Children are. Around six million U.S. born children live with an undocumented family mem-

Among those 2.7 million people in Texas, 1.4 million are U.S. citizens––including 1 million children. In California, there are 4.66 million U.S. citizens with at least one undocumented family member. This number includes 1.96 million children as well. Taking these mixed status families into account, along with undocumented families all over the country, we must begin to reimagine the portrait of the American Family.

Although Texas is among the states with the highest immigrant population in the country, mixed-status families also

these families are composed of one U.S. citizen and one undocumented immigrant. The varying citizenship and legal statuses within individual families are largely attributed to the fluctuation of immigration policies, as changing patterns of hardline and lenient policies affect immigrants’ propensities to stay in the United States or to return to their home country.

For example, provisions within the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 allowed immigrants to obtain legal status once they arrived in the United States. In more

ber, which could be a parent or a sibling. For a Republican party that touts a veneration for “family values” and the sanctity of American citizenship, these four million U.S. citizen children represent a paradoxical reality that undermines their binary citizenship world.

According to recent research by the University of Southern California’s Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration and the Center of American Progress, there are nearly 2.7 million Texans who have at least one undocumented family member living with them.

make up a significant part of the entire country’s population. Between seven and eight percent of all children in the United States have at least one undocumented parent. Nine percent of families in the United States with children are mixed-status. These statistics suggest that nearly one in every ten American child has an undocumented parent and that nearly one in every ten American family with children is a mixed-status one.

Thirty-nine percent of parents in mixed-status families are both undocumented while forty-one percent of parents in

recent years, the increased militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border has compelled many immigrants who come as seasonal workers for agricultural, construction, and other forms of menial labor to stay in the United States despite lacking the proper documentation.

By redefining the American Family, Democrats will be able to not only reframe the conservation surround immigrant populations, but also elucidate issues faced by the undocumented and mixed-status family population.

In an interview about the

“These issues serve as daunting reminders of realities that are seldom acknowledged in the current debate surrounding immigration.”

prevalence of mixed-status families in California and the issues surrounding their community, Jesus Martinez, Chair of the Central Valley Immigrant Integration Collaborative, sums up this point succinctly by saying, “The fluctuations in immigration policies mean that family members can easily have different legal statuses depending on when they arrived in the U.S. Undocumented immigrants who once traveled between the U.S. and Mexico may not be raising families full-time in the United States and giving birth to children who are citizens. U.S-born children are going to be able to be eligible for every type of program imaginable, so within the family there’s going to be this unequal access to services, to education, and medical care. We see those families all the time.”

Besides unequal access to important services, there has been a lot of research done on the harmful impact of immigration policy on the children within mixed-status families. Several immigration, globalization, and education scholars argue that some policymakers have not considered the effects and potential harm posed to children in mixed-status families when crafting immigration policy targeted towards undocumented immigrants. New York University professor Hirozaku Yoshikawa writes in her book Immigrants

Raising Citizens: Undocumented Parents and their Children that “4 million [citizen] children share the same citizenship with the children of the native-born.

Policy debates raging about undocumented immigrants in the United States fail to consider the effect on children of all policies targeting the undocumented.”

There are two critical problems faced by mixed-status families that are created directly by American immigration policy. The fear of deportation impacts all members of mixed-status families––including the U.S. citizen members. Additionally, children in mixed-status families who are U.S. citizens do not realize the full benefits of their citizenship due to fearing interaction with government officials. These problems also encapsulate the structural barriers created by particularly harsh immigration policies.

Current immigration policies that contribute to these problems within the mixed-status community are prevalent in the recently revamped immigration policies of President Trump’s presidency. In the beginning of his administration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) received new directives regarding deportation procedures that dismissed an Obama-era directive that placed priority on deporting gang members and felons over unauthorized immigrants without a criminal record. The Trump administration then expressed intent to use “expedited removal” of undocumented immigrants at a larger capacity than previous administrations, which allows the government to deport immigrants who have been in the United States under a certain period of time without

allowing them to have their day in court.

Other hard-line immigration policies under the current administration include the training of local and state law enforcement officers to work as de facto immigration officers with the capacity to turn individuals over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the denial of federal aid to “sanctuary cities” that protect undocumented and mixed-status families by limiting their cooperation with immigration enforcement agencies.

These issues serve as daunting reminders of realities that are seldom acknowledged in the current debate surrounding immigration. How are Democrats going to talk about the consequences of deportation in undocumented and mixed-status families if the debate is still framed around a mythical American Family put in danger by undocumented immigrants?

With notable differences but also important similarities to the undocumented population, the mixed-status population is a powerful example of the complex reality of the American Family. American children in schools have parents, siblings, cousins, aunts, and uncles who are undocumented. A good number of them are undocumented themselves. It is incredibly important to support mixed status and undocumented families and remember their realities as we craft an immigration debate moving forward. The American Family is of no particular legal status. ☐

FOR MORE ARTICLES, VISIT US ONLINE @ CPREVIEW.ORG