The fragility of human rights makes them an unfortunate and easy target for demagogues, despots, and governments of ill-repute to dismantle. In times of crises, the call for protecting the greater good is answered and achieved by means that may bring more harm than benefits. With the COVID-19 pandemic sweeping its way throughout the globe, human rights advocates have received a grim reminder on the importance of their task.

In April, the United Nations published a report on human rights and COVID-19. It bore the name “We are all in this together,” as well as the statement “Human rights are critical – for the response and the recovery.” Both are important to keep in mind. Though we are all equally against the coronavirus, we are not all affected by it equally. As the UN report states (and has become apparent in the time since), “The public health crisis is fast becoming an economic and social crisis.”  It should be, and should have been, at the forefront of states’ plans in combating the coronavirus to deploy combative measures with as widespread societal effect as possible. This has not, unfortunately, been the case.

Human rights in their purest forms are, by necessity, malleable to an extent. Lockdowns employed by cities and states throughout the globe were used to restrict people’s right to freedom of movement. Of course, this was necessary considering the extreme circumstances. This pandemic has put this line of thinking to the test.

Of particular note is the actions of the police in enforcing lockdowns. Most targets of such action have been minorities.  Breaching lockdowns and curfews have been used as a basis for police violence. France and the U.K. are two such countries where targets have been from immigrant and minority communities. It has not just been people of color, though. Homeless across Europe, as well as the border-spanning Roma have faced discrimination. The rules of lockdowns are hard for these particular people to adhere to. The police in many European countries have been unwilling to understand this.

The social contract between the citizens of a country and its government has been challenged during this crisis. Ideally, in a democracy, it is a symbiotic relationship (in the form of said contract) that allows a government to represent the people who chose them in their best interest. COVID-19, though, has laid bare the deficiencies present in many countries. In too many places there had been no preparations for anything remotely bordering on COVID-19’s scale. Hospitals were either understaffed, understocked, or both. The United Nations has chosen as a particular spotlight the underinvestment of health systems during the spread of virus. “COVID-19 is showing that universal health coverage must become an imperative.” 

It is, of course, not just what governments failed to do that has people worrying. Attacks on democratic practices and institutions are a grave threat at a time of societal instability such as now. Viktor Orbán of Hungary was given the power to rule by decree on March 30th. One of the infamous populist leaders of Europe, in power since 2010, Orbán has been accused of leading Hungary’s democratic backslide. With an indefinite state of emergency, by-elections having been put on hold, and “deliberate distribution of misleading information,” resulting in jail-time, Hungary is on the edge. One can only hope that this extraordinary measure will see its end on June 20th as promised by Mr Orbán.

A long-term crisis can provide an ample window of opportunity for attempts at more power. Mr Orbán may have been only the first, or the most brazen, quasi-authoritarian leader to push for emergency powers. It does not seem too far-fetched, though, for there to be others. In an age of increased populism, nationalism, and ‘us-vs.-them’ rhetoric the tide of a foreign-born virus may very well lead to minorities to be used as scapegoats. The virus can thus be understood to have put minority populations (especially Asian populations) at an even increased risk: from weakened health/social care, and increased xenophobia.

The economic effects of the virus will be a burden on all, if not in the short-term then in the long. The International Monetary Fund’s World Economic Outlook for June of 2020 has the global growth projected to be around -4.9%. This has a chance to shrink even more. The effect this will have on developed nations is worrying; on less developed countries it is downright horrid. Efforts to reduce extreme poverty will be setback by years. This is yet another example of how, though the virus itself does not discriminate, it’s effects are certainly lopsided.

Those people beset by economic and societal inequalities need their rights to be guaranteed and protected by governments. Unrest and frustration are likely to rise if not. Governments around the world should have already worked to implement the Sustainable Development Goals. COVID-19 has shown a now-or-never moment for achieving these.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Reiff Center or Christopher Newport University.

Migrants forced to stay in camps along European and U.S. borders as well as those in countries that host a large number of displaced persons, such as Jordan, Lebanon, Syria or Bangladesh face particularly dire circumstances associated with the virus.  Thus, as measures are taken to ensure the health and safety of people throughout the world, it is important to also consider the implications of such actions on the livelihood and wellbeing of migrant populations.  

If you would like to learn more about the topics reflected in the poster above, click on the following hyperlinks for additional information:

• The impact of travel restrictions on refugees and internally displaced persons:
  • International law protecting asylum seekers
  • The United States’ decision to block refuges from entering the country
  • Additional restrictions implemented across the globe
• Disruptions to protection and assistance for refuges and internally displaced persons:
  • Interference with the ability of IDPs to receive necessary resources and services
  • Suspension of all administrative services related to migrants and asylum seekers
    • Impact of COVID-19 on the United States’ “Remain in Mexico” program
• Migrant camp locations and conditions in relation to COVID-19
  • Risks faced by camps located in close proximity to highly affected countries
  • Limited testing capabilities
• The long-term implications of COVID-19 on refugees and internally displaced persons:
  • The potential for a rise in anti-refugee sentiment which could consequently lead to an increase in xenophobia and stigmatization
  • COVID-19 as a tool used to fuel civic nationalism
  • Using the global pandemic as an opportunity for increased empathy and solidarity

COVID-19 is a threat to humanity, but those most in need of protection are being left behind. There are over 70.5 million displaced persons worldwide and COVID-19 threatens to further harm this at-risk population.

The largest threats to displaced populations are crowded and unsanitary conditions in camps, lack of access to timely and accurate information, lack of access to medical care, and further oppression from COVID-19. Over 80 percent of the world’s refugee population and almost all of internally displaced people live in low to middle-income countries and most are harbored in government or NGO-run camps. These camps lack clean, running water, proper sewage systems, and are severely overcrowded. Most governments provide information to their displaced populations last, and language barriers and lack of internet or phone service hinder information consumption. As such, displaced persons are receiving incomplete to no information on social distancing, hygiene, and government regulations, leaving them at risk of catching the disease or punishment for breaking government regulations.

Displaced populations in camps also lack access to proper medical care, as the camps are not equipped to handle critical care, especially in mass numbers, and governments restrict healthcare benefits to non-citizens. Finally, there is a great risk that COVID-19 will be used as a weapon of oppression. Political leaders around the globe are blaming displaced populations for the spread of COVID-19 to divert blame from themselves. COVID-19 might not simply be a virus, but a tool for further oppression.

In a colloquial manner, Dr. Whitman was able to engage students and community members alike by discussing the resolution of conflict as a means to motivate joining any sort of service job. As he described, conflict is caused by three things: scarcity of resources, miscommunication or misunderstanding, and perceived injustice. The scarcity of resources has a snowball effect considering everyone has basic needs and in many instances, people are willing to fight for what they want as well. Miscommunication comes from dancing around whatever issue is occurring between two states, groups or people. And in many ways, Dr. Whitman argued that the miscommunication aspect is one of the most dangerous pieces of conflict altogether. However, perceived injustice is unique in the sense that in most cases, someone views themselves as a victim whenever they are involved in a conflict which blurs the line between perceiving and actually experiencing injustice. 

Due to this, Dr. Whitman went in-depth as to why conflict is avoidable and why diplomacy is the answer. Good diplomacy, according to Dr. Whitman, is simply being able to point out what the miscommunication between parties is. If the conflict can be brought up and addressed, it allows for easier discussion to take place earlier when future conflicts arise. To deepen this point, Dr. Whitman provided a historical perspective by examining the work of George F. Kennan who is credited with the containment strategy that prevented nuclear war.

Yet beyond simply discussing the good work done by George Kennan, Dr. Whitman pointed out that his talk was focusing on a realistic approach to foreign service. Working in foreign service can be incredibly rewarding. Dr. Whitman’s stories very clearly proved that he found a great deal of joy in his work with the State Department. However, as he said, working in the foreign service is not for everyone. The work is challenging, exhausting, and Dr. Whitman agreed with George Kennan who described it as “disorienting.” 

To help those listening to his presentation, Dr. Whitman offered life advice and his insights on how to navigate what the best move for each individual is when determining if life in the foreign service is a good idea. “You need to decide if you are truly the type of person who is okay and happy with the changes and stresses that come with uprooting your life every few years. Are you sedentary or nomadic?” Dr. Whitman pressed the value in checking in with oneself to evaluate how you feel when it comes to moving frequently, relationships back home suffering, and the possibility of living somewhere you don’t enjoy. However, he also talked about the wonderful opportunities that come with living abroad, being emerged in a new culture, eating exciting food in a local’s home, and making worldly friends. 

After his discussion, Dr. Whitman opened up the floor to questions. A student asked him what his best piece of advice was to give to students. He said, “there is no such thing as a mistake; you just proceed with a plan and another plan for when it doesn’t work.” And he encouraged the audience to try the foreign service if they felt an itch to do it. The worst thing that could happen was getting turned away, but according to him, the majority of people who work in the foreign service do not pass and get accepted their first time through. Dr. Whitman suggested if you believe that “world peace will not be angels, harps, and avocados. It will be a process of knowing we will die, but we see how we can prolong the process,” then foreign service work, or any type of service job, might be for you.

In the second half of the film, the audience learns of the grassroots humanitarian organizations such as People Helping People, Humane Borders, and No More Deaths which aim to confront the human rights violations occurring at the border. Organizations such as these have provided resources, information, and assistance to the thousands of people that attempt to cross the border every day. Additionally, they have fought against the notion that humanitarian aid is a crime and worked together to address the large problem of abuse at the border that is often difficult to address individually.

Following the thought-provoking and emotional documentary screening was a panel discussion facilitated by Dr. Johnny Finn, Associate Professor of Geography at Christopher Newport University, who also got his PhD from the University of Arizona. The two guest speakers were both humanitarian aid workers – one of whom was also the associate producer of Undeterred. Audience members were encouraged to ask the two guests questions about their experience working with organizations concentrated on assisting those making the trek to cross the border as well as improving the quality of life within border communities.

Key points from the post-film discussion included an explanation of what it is like to live in a border community; the increasing association of humanitarian aid with criminal behavior; and the notion that despite the perspective of many border agents that their work is upholding “law and order”, making conditions harsher for travelers does not actually deter migrants from crossing the border. Rather, it pushes migrants to adopt more treacherous paths as they are forced to undertake days-long trek in the Arizona desert with highs of 120F and lows of 15F. As such, the 1994 Border Patrol Strategic Plan of ‘prevention through deterrence’ is both ineffective and inhumane. The Q&A further highlighted that though the Trump Administration has increased enforcement of existing policies and heightened feelings of fear and risk, the atrocities occurring at the border is not a new or recent phenomenon.

Towards the end of the discussion, the volunteers made suggestions for improving the dire situation that has been occurring at our borders for over two decades. One argued that taking the profit out of private detention facilities would diminish the motivation to punish those seeking a better life in the United States. The other urged people to ask themselves “where is the border and what borders am I creating every day?” She went on to encourage others to get involved in humanitarian aid and awareness efforts, pointing out that these efforts are required not just on our border, but even within our communities, as there is an ICE detention facility just 20 minutes from us in Williamsburg, VA. She contends that there is a place for everyone of all abilities in the line of work and that significant risks are not a necessary component of aiding travelers in need.

At the end of the event, the audience was encouraged to “open the borders that might be in [our] heart[s]”. If you would like to learn more about the organizations working to fight the injustices at the border or contribute yourself, please visit PHPArivaca.org.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Reiff Center or Christopher Newport University.

This blog post is the last of a three-part series that traces migrants’ motivations for crossing the border, the history of the militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border since the 1990s, the weaponization of the desert that has led to the deaths of over 5,000 migrants, and the criminalization of humanitarian work along the border.

Map of the Arizona-Mexico Border Depicting Recorded Migrant Deaths

The United States is facing an immigration crisis. Migrants crossing the border without adequate documentation are dying in stark numbers. The previous post in our series explored migrants’ motivations for crossing at deserts along the border, and the harsh desert conditions lead to many deaths. Since 1998, at least 7,505 individuals died crossing the border. In Pima County, Arizona alone, the Medical Examiner has received 2,923 remains since 2000. Organizations are attempting to provide humanitarian aid to migrants, but recent government crackdowns on their efforts are preventing aid from saving migrant lives.

America began militarizing the border in the 1990s. This militarization consisted of increased border patrol stations and officers. In attempts to support this policy, America instituted the “Prevention Through Deterrence” strategy. This strategy includes using the deserts as weapons along the U.S.-Mexico border. Deserts serve as their own borders-to-entry, so Border Patrol finds it unnecessary to place physical barriers. Instead of placing fencing or other deterrence methods along and inside the desert, they simply ensure that the desert is inhospitable for migrant travel. This prevention includes withholding supplies, such as water, clothing, and shelter, within or close to the desert terrain. In theory, the risk of death would deter migrants from crossing at desert sites, but the risk of remaining outside of the U.S. explored in our first post, pushes migrants to brave the dangerous conditions.

Water Jug from No More Deaths

In response to mass migrant deaths, humanitarian organizations formed with the purpose of supplying migrants with life-saving supplies. Organizations like No More Deaths, Frontera de Cristo, CRREDA, Humane Borders, Samaritan Patrols, and People Helping People, work to provide food, water, shelter, and clothing to individuals crossing the desert. Their efforts include leaving water and “harm reduction kits” along known migrant routes, as well as completing search and rescue missions for stranded individuals. While the organizations’ main purpose is to provide relief for migrants, they provide aid regardless of legal status.

In recent years, the humanitarian efforts by local residents and non-governmental organizations became the targets of Border Patrol Officers. Before 2016, border patrol officers and humanitarians coexisted harmoniously and with knowledge of one another’s actions. However, increased restrictions on immigration policy and entrance created a hostile environment near the border.

Border Patrol officers are no longer turning a blind eye to humanitarian efforts. Instead, they are actively sabotaging those efforts. Officers are slashing open the water jugs and destroying supplies left in the desert for migrants. Patrol is also tracking down humanitarians and the organizations providing aid to arrest and charge them with federal misdemeanors and felonies for providing life-saving aid to migrants.

In 2017, the group No More Deaths faced federal misdemeanor charges for “entering a wildlife refuge without a permit” and “abandonment of property.” The charges held possible punishments of imprisonment and $10,000 in fines. Charges are not simply falling on the organizations, the government is charging individuals as well.

“The Barn”

In January of 2018, Scott Warren was arrested by Border Patrol Officers for providing aid to migrants. While working for No More Deaths, Warren provided food, water, clothes, and shelter to two migrants in a structure called “The Barn.” The Barn was a safe haven for migrants searching for medical assistance or resources during their travels. While two migrants were at The Barn receiving aid, Border Patrol raided the structure and arrested the migrants and Warren. The government charged Warren with “conspiracy to harbor illegal aliens,” and “concealing, harboring, or shielding from detection… in furtherance of illegal presence” in the nation.

These charges accuse Warren of actively keeping migrants from government arrest, but Warren was simply providing aid. The Barn was a public building and the migrants’ identities were not a secret. Under U.S. law, no person has the obligation to report undocumented immigrants, or any unlawful conduct, to police. U.S. precedent states that association with undocumented migrants is not a crime. Even so, the United States wants to charge Warren for not reporting the migrants and providing them aid.

When charging humanitarian workers and organizations, the federal government is not creating new laws. Instead, the prosecution is redefining and reapplying laws already on the books. “Harboring illegal aliens” usually requires intent to hide them from law enforcement under 8 U.S. Code § 1324. However, humanitarian organizations are not necessarily hiding migrants. “Transporting” immigrants is another federal charge under8 U.S. Code § 1324, but the “transport” in border cases usually takes the form of providing directions or driving migrants to medical aid. The federal government is attempting to prove that the humanitarian organizations are actively assisting, transporting, and hiding migrants from the authorities. In reality, the organizations only desire to save lives.

Warren worries this criminalization of aid will become a slippery slope. Will individuals need to ask the legal status of individuals before providing them with directions? If someone is found dying of starvation and dehydration in the desert, will it be illegal to provide them with life-saving medical aid if they are undocumented? It is too soon to understand what ramifications the increased criminalization of aid will have on humanitarians, border patrol, and illegal migration. Even so, humanitarian organizations are not withdrawing their efforts to assist migrants any time soon.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this post solely reflect the author’s opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Reiff Center or Christopher Newport University

On October 7th, The Reiff Center for Human Rights and Conflict Resolution, in conjunction with the United Jewish Community of the Virginia Peninsula, will be featuring the full-length documentary, Undeterred, the story of life on the U.S.-Mexico Border in Southern Arizona at 6:30 PM, in the Freeman Center’s Gaines Theater. The film will be followed by a Q&A session featuring several humanitarian aid volunteers, including the film’s Associate Producer.

This blog post is the second of a three-part series that traces migrants’ motivations for crossing the border, the history of the militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border since the 1990s, the weaponization of the desert that has led to the deaths of over 5,000 migrants, and the criminalization of humanitarian work along the border.

Following 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security created the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) along with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – two organizations that work jointly to enforce immigration policy. Recently, their efforts have focused on the U.S.-Mexico border.  A key element of CBP is its Border Patrol. The U.S. Border Patrol has been around ever since its inception in 1924. However, it became part of CBP once DHS was established in 2002.

The 1980s and 1990s marked the initial stages of Border Patrol’s militarization trend. During this time, there was an increase in manpower and modern technology (i.e. infrared night-vision scopes). A notable government initiative, Border Patrol Strategic Plan: 1994 and Beyond, set forth that Border Patrol, “will improve control of the border by implementing a strategy of ‘prevention through deterrence.’” The mission that was set forth, such as heavy patrolling and construction of barriers on heavy-traffic areas on the southern border, is still prevalent among today’s Border Patrol practices and operations. 

Since October of 2018, 811,016 immigrants were apprehended by the CBP Southwest Border Patrol. Many of these people are fleeing violence and persecution in Central and South American countries. With this influx of immigrants, the current administration has responded by sending military troops and personnel to the border. Currently, there are approximately 6,600 troops on the US-Mexico border.

U.S. Military at the Border 

Despite the increasing presence of the U.S. military along the U.S.-Mexico border, this phenomenon is not new. In June 2006, former President George W. Bush launched Operation Jump Start, a U.S. military operation that deployed 6,000 National Guard troops in order to assist and support CBP Border Patrol’s efforts. Four years later in 2010, former President Barack Obama announced Operation Phalanx. This initially ordered the deployment of 1,200 National Guard troops, however, this number was scaled back in 2012 because the focus shifted from boots on the ground to aerial surveillance.

Use of Drones 

The focus on aerial surveillance has become a key asset for CBP operations. In September of 2017, CBP announced that Border Patrol would begin testing Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) in 3 Border Patrol zones – two of which were at the southern border. The purpose of the sUAS is primarily to provide better and greater reconnaissance, intelligence, surveillance, tracking, and acquisition capabilities. There have also been instances of military drones being utilized at the border as well. Throughout 2018, the U.S. Army’s MQ-1C Gray Eagle has been called to the southern border to help with security missions.

Military Culture

The prevailing militarization of the border and CBP as a whole is not only prompted by political forces. There are also organizational beliefs and attitudes in CBP that may have a role in these recent developments. CBP heavily recruits and hires military veterans. For example, roughly a third of CBP’s staff have served in the military. As a result, the organization prides itself on its “military community culture.” Of the ICE workforce, one-third of those are veterans. They too emphasize the importance and demand of military veterans. 

“Men in Green”

There is also a visual element when it comes to the militarization at the southern border, particularly with CBP Border Patrol Agents. At first glance, the “men in green,” as they are often referred to, look alert and ready as if they are about to face combat. The weapon and gear Border Patrol agents possess are typically designed and created for U.S. service members. Agents are equipped with armored vehicles, riot gear, helicopters, M4 rifles with silencers, and noise-canceling tactical headsets, all of which are synonymous with what has been seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

In 2014, CBP received nearly $40 million in tactical gear from the Department of Defense. There has been a surplus of military equipment ever since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result, many of these extras have been utilized by law enforcement agencies, including CBP. There are various images of CBP agents wearing Operational Camouflage Pattern uniforms. These uniforms were originally designed for the U.S. Army and have been worn by Green Berets, however, some Navy SEALs are also known for wearing them as well. 

Effects on Immigration Patterns

As of August of this year, 657,404 people were arrested for attempting to cross the border without adequate documentation. And of these arrests, more family units were arrested than single adults. This change in immigration patterns reflects the sense of urgency and danger these families are facing. Rather than facing the danger in their countries of origin, families are choosing to flee to the U.S. However, instead of attempting to cross the border via ports of entry, the intimidation caused by the militarization of the border deters migrants from taking an official route or port of entry. Its roots can be traced back to the Clinton administration, which established the strategy of Prevention Through Deterrence. This forced migrant routes to shift to desert areas due to the fear of being caught in the common and more urban routes.

The avoidance of official ports of entry leads people to funnel through dangerous desert terrain. But facing the menacing heat, dehydration and starvation is only part of the problem. Kidnapping and rape, as well as death, are common risks migrants face. 

Part III of the series will highlight the efforts of humanitarian aid workers who work around the border, especially in the desert, as well as increasing criminalization of such humanitarian work.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this post solely reflect the authors’ opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Reiff Center or Christopher Newport University.

This blog post is the first of a three-part series that traces migrants’ motivations for crossing the border, the history of the militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border since the 1990s, the weaponization of the desert that has led to the deaths of over 5,000 migrants, and the criminalization of humanitarian work along the border. 

So far this year, there has been a total of 811,106 apprehensions of people attempting to cross the border in America without adequate documentation. According to the U.S. border patrol in 2018, there were a reported 283 deaths at the Mexico-U.S. border. Since 1998 there have been 7,505 deaths on that same border.

Due to these statistics, border security has been a salient topic of conversation in almost every presidential debate in recent history. As immigration reforms becomes an important issue in the upcoming 2020 election, finding solutions will be at the forefront of many debates. Many potential swing voters (~30% of total voters) describe immigration policy being a key factor in deciding their vote. 

To tackle the issue at hand, it is important to learn the motivations of those immigrating without adequate documentation. Why would Central Americans and Mexican citizens leave their homes and make a dangerous, possibly fatal journey away from their homeland into a foreign country that actively implements measures to prevent them from crossing the border? And this is not simply a problem for adult males. Pregnant women, as well as small children, also attempt to make the journey alone, each for their own respective reasons.

Gang Violence in Central America

One of the main motivations of those fleeing their home countries is the pressure from drug-related crime and gang-related violence. Many people in Mexico and Central America are dissatisfied with the status of their home country. According to the Pew Research Center, “With drug-related violence affecting much of Mexico, a large majority describe crime (81%) and illegal drugs (73%) as very big problems.”

Gang violence also leads to a high homicide rate in many Central American countries. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, current homicide rates are among the highest ever recorded in Central America. Several cities, including San Salvador, Tegucigalpa, and San Pedro Sula, are among the 10 most dangerous in the world. The most visible evidence of violence is the high rate of brutal homicides, but other human rights abuses are on the rise, including the recruitment of children into gangs. Honduras, with the highest homicide rate, had 187 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2013 driven by gang and drug trafficking-related violence. 

With gang violence becoming such an issue, many families also bring or send their children along this treacherous hike, regardless of the risk to their lives, as they see undocumented immigration preferable to the life they would be conscripted into otherwise.

From 2013 to 2014, the number of children attempting to cross the border alone doubled. Many children leave to come to America unaccompanied, alone, and hungry.  In 2019 alone, there have already been 72,773 reported apprehensions of unaccompanied children attempting to cross into the border.

 See a Better Life for themselves/families

According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Survey in 2009, 57% of people who migrate to the US from Mexico say that they enjoy a better life in the U.S, even if they have to come into the United States undocumented. According to the World Bank in 2017, 64.3% of the population is living in poverty, with Guatemala ranking at 59.3% in 2014. According to a Pew Research study,  69% of Mexican citizens say the current economy is bad. 

Many Central Americans have experienced poverty and hardships in Latin America and therefore want their children to have more opportunities to succeed, and see this as a solution. With gang conscription of youth being such an issue, pregnant or new mothers see undocumented immigration as the best opportunity for their child.

The falling prices in coffee, combined with the steady loss of land due to corporations, contribute heavily to the economic hardships of Mexican and Central American citizens. Coffee prices are falling globally, and as of 2019 is worth about $1.00, with coffee costing about $1.20 to produce per pound. That means that most farmers, including many plantations and farmers in Mexico and Central America, are operating at a net loss, forcing many farmers to sell their farm or serve as an inhibitor for farmers to maintain their plantations. In addition to adversely affecting small farmers, it also forces unemployment on many workers working in big plantations as well. Further, in 2012, coffee farms in Central and South America were hit with an epidemic of a disease called coffee leaf rust, or la roya. It cut the productivity of some countries, like El Salvador, in half. 

With the different factors such gang violence, poverty, high homicide rates, and the potential for greater economic opportunity elsewhere, many central American and Mexican citizens choose to make the precarious journey of attempting to illegally cross the border.

Part II of this series will look at the militarization and weaponization of the border over the last 25 years.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this post solely reflect the author’s opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Reiff Center or Christopher Newport University.

Resettlement is very fast-paced, especially within the first 10 days of the arrival of a new case. Members of a case must receive certain services such as applying for a Social Security number, public benefits, housing, and receiving a health assessment. With multiple cases arriving in a short period of time, I realized that set routines or schedules did not exist in a position like this. I learnt something new every single day on the job, but there were two big points that I would like to reflect on below.

On my first day, I learnt that that only 1% of the world’s refugee population is ever resettled, and most people multiple years for the possibility to be resettled. I was able to hone my understanding of the refugee experience when first I met one of my supervisors, Geeta. As a refugee from Bhutan, he had spent 13 years in a refugee camp in Nepal and was resettled by IRC in Charlottesville in 2011. Geeta began volunteering for IRC, then worked his way up to the Caseworker position and obtained his citizenship. During his naturalization ceremony, he said, “The country I was born in considered me a non-national. The country they said I belonged to considered me a refugee. The country I had no connection to accepted me as its citizen today.” Working alongside Geeta allowed me to fully understand the refugee experience and the importance that resettlement programs play for refugees in countries like the U.S. (You can watch a clip IRC made about Geeta here.)

I also realized that the biggest problem facing refugees being resettled in the U.S. was the declining number of refugees being accepted into the country. In 2019, the Trump Administration capped the annual number at a historic low of 30,000. However, this number could drop even further in the wake of threats of abolishing the refugee program all together. In response to these threats, IRC announced its support of the GRACE Act. The GRACE Act is a piece of legislation introduced to the U.S. Senate that would increase the number of refugees admitted to 95,000 annually. As an intern, I definitely understood the importance of advocating on refugees behalf. When searching for housing for our clients, I noticed I was often fielding questions about those who did not know anything about refugees or attempting to change people’s minds about misconceptions they held about refugees. I found myself reiterating the statement, “Refugees are very harshly vetted by the Department of Homeland Security for nearly two years,” over and over again to those who would claim not to trust our clients. While this could be frustrating at times, it was well worth it when I would find a family or client their first home in the U.S. 

In this field, it is important to try to keep in mind that while the work can be fast paced, stressful, and sometimes even chaotic, one’s efforts will not be in vain. From this internship, I learned that casework can sometimes feel under-appreciated. This is not because staff members do not recognize your efforts, but because many of IRC’s clients do not speak English, and understanding the processes and procedures of a foreign country can be hard for someone who has just arrived in that country. However, any time I was feeling as though I was not doing well enough or letting clients down, a client would somehow remind me that I was helping them restart their lives. One day, I was feeling particularly down. I went to pick up a client who had arrived 2 days prior, and was going to take him to his health assessment. But five minutes into the drive he started crying in my passenger seat. Then, after I pulled over, he said something that will stick with me forever: “Before, I had nothing. But here, this is everything I could have ever dreamed of. Thank you. Alhamdulillah.”  

At the beginning of this internship, I had no idea what to expect. And to be fair, some mornings I would go into the office without knowing what to expect. With a position in casework, having helped resettle over 60 refugees in Charlottesville, I have realized that each person is unique and has different needs. At the end of this internship, I knew how to meet those needs no matter how unique they might be.  I have learned more in three months about the refugee experience than I ever could from a book or a class. These past 10 weeks have equipped me with invaluable experience and have laid the foundational stones for my future career path. 

Disclaimer: Any views expressed in the above post are the author’s own and do not reflect those of the International Rescue Committee or the Reiff Center.

Dr. Guiler began her lecture by discussing why populism has seemingly been more prevalent in recent decades due to large post-materialist cultural shifts after WWII, causing widespread anxiety that cultural changes and an influx of foreigners were eroding cultural norms. Despite the presence of populist rhetoric and movements since the end of WWII, there is a perception that it has been more prevalent in recent years. Dr. Guiler pinpoints four reasons for this: continued economic growth over past three decades, but with gains only being felt by those at the top; growing existential insecurity; a large influx of immigrants into western societies; and a perceived increased threat causing demand for strong leadership to protect citizens and reject outsiders.

So when does populism shift to being autocratic? Populism becomes autocratic when it is focused on messages of anti-elitism, anti-pluralism, and viewing society as ‘us versus them.’ Rather than focus on autocratic populism in isolation, she studied how autocratic populism and conspiracy theories were interconnected by examining the coup attempt in Turkey in 2016, as well as the 2016 presidential election within the United States. Within both of these case studies, conspiracy theories were heavily circulated and focused on emphasizing existential insecurities and the idea that the current system allows corrupt elites to continue to betray the people.

In Turkey, Dr. Guiler conducted a survey of 430 adults, who were of voting age, after the coup attempt in July of 2016 and found that Turkish citizens were more likely to trust Turkish government leaders over critics. In addition to conducting this survey in Turkey, Dr. Guiler also wished to examine this phenomena within the United States by looking at the effect conspiratorial rhetoric has on people’s voting attitudes. Among Democratic respondents to her survey, they were likely to feel sad, anxious, disgusted, and angry when presented with the scenario of their preferred candidate losing the election. The same was true with Republicans. Additionally, they were less likely to feel enthusiastic and hopeful. The implications of Dr. Guiler’s research suggest that conspiracies affect the emotions of citizens, thus potentially leading to the development of autocratic populism within a society.