Jun 15

What really happens when you get rid of those old CDs?

The other day I was cleaning out my room and found a pile of old CDs that I no longer had any use for (Hanson and I parted ways a long time ago). Now, I know what I’m supposed to do when I want to get rid of old electrics and the like: recycle them. I was moving and in a pinch and didn’t have the time to run to the nearest Best Buy so I tossed them in the can. It’s been haunting me ever since.

The thing is that I knew better. Why? Because I already wrote a research paper on electronic or electric garbage, i.e. e-waste (this may be considered blog post cheating) and learned about the bad effects it has on the environment and people affected by it. My few CDs were only a small contribution to this larger issue, although by no means harmless; but I started to think about whether trashing versus recycling really is better.

It’s a double-edged sword when it comes to whether you just throw away your old e-waste or recycle it. Either way you can never really be sure you’re doing the right thing. It seems like a no-brainer, right? Recycling trumps trashing. This is the environmentally conscious way to avoid being a part of the problem and creating more needless garbage by disposing of something in a suitable way. But this golden rule does not apply when it comes to e-waste.

When you throw away the electronics, and we do get rid of a lot in the US, less than 20% is even recycled. The stuff that is thrown away ends up in landfills and incinerators which pose a possible threat of toxins leaching into the ground and the atmosphere. Not a promising thought. What about that idealistic thought of doing your environmentally-sound civic duty and recycling your e-waste? This is when things really get tricky…and disheartening.

Recycling is great when you can take it to somewhere like Best Buy and know that your e-waste will be managed properly. Places like this are great; however, even these kinds of places have limitations on what they’ll accept and if your item is big you better be ready to fork over the cash to have it picked up. There are private, for-profit companies specializing in e-waste recycling that will come collect your e-trash, but be prepared to pay for that too. It’s great to think everyone would 1) have the forethought to do this, and 2) be willing to fork over cash to save the environment; but the reality is highly unlikely.

Another huge barrier in getting your stuff properly recycled is that there is no standard for this in the US. E-waste recycling management is something decided through state legislation, meaning that recycling programs can vary drastically. This is complimented by federal strategies, not by solid recycling policies or legislation, that encourage commitments from e-waste producing industries promising that they’ll start taking back old and used products to recycle properly.

The darkest side of the recycling is when those well-intentioned recyclables end up being exported illegally to less industrialized and regulated countries like China or India where the damage to human health is disastrous. These countries have informal recycling sectors where people, including children, are exposed to serious health hazards both directly through the waste and indirectly through toxins leached into their environments.

It may not seem like it after this post, but I still believe that recycling is always a better option than just trashing those CDs. Legitimate options are out there, it just takes that personal-level of commitment to actually seek them out and follow through. Yes, there needs to be more political action from our part as the citizens, but the first step to doing better is to actually learn about the issue and see what role you play in it.

Share

Jun 14

Myth vs. Reality: Does Africa Really Need Saving?

Cupcakes. Skinny jeans. Reality shows. All are trends that have exploded in popularity within the United States in the last decade. Another recent trend? “Saving Africa”. Earlier in the week, I wrote about the common myths and misconceptions having to do with the continent of Africa, many of which stem from the mainstream American media. The entire continent of Africa has often been portrayed as a continent caught in chaos in the media. News reports of famine, disease, and violence have come aplenty, filling news stations across the United States. However, in the last couple decades, the tide has begun to change.  Are all the countries in Africa still viewed as scary places, full of scary people and problems? Certainly. However, there’s a new public relations campaign, which has emerged to fix all such problems. Let’s call it the “Save Africa” campaign. Brought to you straight from Hollywood.

Take the infamous “I Am African” campaign, promoted by the Keep A Child Alive organization several years ago. In the campaign, famous celebrities like Iman, Gwyneth Paltrow, Tyson Beckford, Gisele Bundchen, Alicia Keys, Sarah Jessica Parker, David Bowie, Liv Tyler, Heidi Klum and Seal, Lucy Liu, Richard Gere, and Lenny Kravitz all posed in a series of black and white photographs. They were covered in body paint and jewelry, and all proudly proclaimed the words, “I Am African”. Scientific debates aside, I’m not quite sure that throwing on some war paint and traditional tribal jewelry makes one African. As for the writing at the bottom of each advertisement? “Help us stop the dying. Pay for lifesaving AIDS drugs that can keep a child, a mother, a father, a family alive.” Wanting to help fund research and life-saving drugs for HIV and AIDS is one things. However, is it really necessary to use lines like “help us save the dying?” By using such terminology, it permanently plants an image in the reader’s mind of a continent in despair.

The problem is that with such campaigns, like the “I Am African” campaign, cultural stereotypes are allowed to be perpetrated. It is true. Countries within Africa do have their fair share of problems. But doesn’t every country? On every continent? Time and time again, the truth remains the same. The best way to build up a society is through empowerment. It’s not through aid. Or celebrity endorsement. It starts with the local people.

It’s a tough issue to deal with because some celebrities do have the best of intentions. While others might do charity work simply as a public relations stunt, most truly want to make an impact. Many are moved by a personal experience that they had while traveling within Africa, or have a story, which has touched their heart. The problem is that in the American media, such stories of celebrities traveling to the countries of Africa to save the local populations, are the only images that are ever shown. The narrative remains the same. The Western world is always the one who comes in to save the day. The countries within Africa are treated like troubled children, who need to be taken care of. You never hear a news story about a local citizen building up the school system in his community or improving the local economy. However, American news stations are filled with reports of Angelina Jolie adopting a daughter from Ethiopia. Or of Carrie Underwood singing “I’ll Stand By You”, as she is surrounded by children from a rural village in Africa, which was shown on the sixth series finale of American Idol. Or even when the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gives extensive donations to charities within Africa in order to eradicate malaria, among other social needs. The message is always the same- the West always has to be the savior for the weaker African countries. It’s cultural superiority at it’s finest.

Africa does not want to be saved. Africa does not need to be saved. “Saving Africa” is a figment of the American imagination. It plays into our fantasy of always needing to be the one to save the day. It’s time to end the “Save Africa” public relations campaign. Local empowerment, not celebrity endorsement, is the key to improving a society. What many of the countries of Africa need is simply the opportunity to work together, as local citizens united with global partners, to ignite change in their communities. They need to be given the chance to stand up on their own two feet, not to be pigeon-holed into a corner, forever stuck in the role of the troubled, younger sibling, who can’t stand up for himself.

Share

Jun 14

The Politics of Women’s Health in the US: Part One

The Debate Over What Emergency Contraception Does Exactly?

I thought that the issue of emergency contraceptives pills (or also commonly called the morning-after pills, but referred to as ECs from here on out) was settled. I wasn’t naïve enough to think that everyone supported it, but thought that at least it was an accepted method as a preventive measure against unwanted pregnancies and potential abortions. I erroneously thought that it was somewhat of a good thing for all sides of the abortion debate. Here we had a pill (or 2) that would prevent a possible pregnancy (awesome for those that are pro-choice) and, if effective, prevent the possibility of a woman becoming accidentally pregnant and potentially having an abortion (also awesome for those that are pro-life). I guess I was wrong.

 

Recently there was an article in the New York Times that presented evidence for two sides of the debate on whether ECs are an abortive agent. What’s interesting about this debate is that it’s based on something as simple as semantics (the wording on boxes telling how exactly the ECs work) and something as complicated as science (research shows that some forms of EC prevent the sperm from fertilizing the egg while some forms work after the sperm has fertilized the egg, i.e. conception). This confusion in information is what has fueled the life-at-conception, pro-life supporters railing against ECs. The problem at the root of it all is that research identifying the way in which ECs works is still emerging but claims have already been made (blatantly on the cover of the boxes they come in) for which there is not yet solid evidence. Thus we have controversy.

This lack of a clear answer as to what exactly ECs do in a woman’s body leads me to wonder: Where does the truth in all of this lie? What security do women really have in the drugs they rely on for their reproductive health? Most importantly, who really has women’s best interests in mind?

The answers I came up with are not so reassuring. The truth in this debate looks like is that some forms of EC are kind of like an abortion and some kind of aren’t, but we won’t really know until more research has been done. It’s outrageous that a federal agency would go ahead and allow claims to be made as advertisements on drugs that they weren’t positive about, only helping to further aggravate the issue and make women question the reliability of a drug they thought was reliable. Both sides seem reluctant to even acknowledge the evidence presented by the other side, stifling productive conversation as to the actual truth behind the entire issue of whether ECs cause abortions, just prevent fertilization, or whether some do one or the other.

So finally, who is really looking out for the women on this issue? Is it a newspaper that decides to Continue reading

Share

Jun 13

Economy vs. Equality: What’s More Important in Visa Law?

You’ve decided you want to come to the United States. So now you’ve got to figure out what kind of visa you qualify for and how you go about getting it. There are 185 types of US visas, all of which have certain requirements and restrictions attached to qualifying for and then using them. The type of visa you have will have a huge impact on your time in America so you need to be informed about which one to choose. But everyone has a more or less equal chance at qualifying for any particular visa right? Wrong. Then at least once you qualify, all visas give you more or less the same freedoms right? Wrong again. Take a look at the different kinds of visas and you’ll see what I mean.

Work visas are the most common types of visas granted for entry to the United States. In order to get this type of visa you must already have a job waiting for you in the US, which meets certain wage requirements. The next most common type are student visas. Students must already have been granted admission to the school they want to attend and prove they have enough money to take care of themselves. Once here, they have to take a certain number of class hours each week and can only work part-time, on campus jobs if they wish to make extra money. Both these and work visas seem to place relatively reasonable requirements on qualification. They place conditions on the visas that force people to positively contribute to society, without being overly difficult to achieve. So it makes sense then that these are the most common kinds of visas. But these are both non immigrant visas. Which means people with these are not allowed to apply for green cards to remain in the country except under special circumstances. So the bar isn’t too high for the average person to come to this country, but it’s much higher if they wish to stay.

Investment visas, on the other hand, are extremely difficult to qualify for and are relatively rare. But if you do qualify, they include whole families and allow all of you to live, work, and attend school in the US, seemingly like an average citizen. But someone on this kind of visa must invest at least $1 million in a new or recently created business or $500,000 in a business in a rural area. Then they must demonstrate that the investment created at least 10 new full-time jobs within 10 years. If they meet these requirements, they can apply for permanent resident status and then apply for full-citizenship 3 years later.

Clearly, investment visas provide lots of freedom and an easier path towards citizenship, but also require the strictest qualifications for receiving it. Only the very wealthy can afford to invest such massive sums of money, which gives them an advantage when it comes to gaining access to this country. I don’t know how you feel about that, but I certainly don’t think that’s fair. A recent CNN article even compared this type of visa to “selling citizenship.” Sure, there can only be 10,000 of these given each year and the demands to qualify for this kind of visa are obviously extremely difficult to meet so not even the full 10,000 are given out. But according to CNN, the number of these visas given each year is growing and the country will almost definitely give out all of them either next year or the year after. That’s a lot of people more or less buying their way into this country.

The US government rationalizes these visas by pointing to its motivation behind creating them: boosting the economy. Yes, people with these visas bring in a lot of money to our country and create more jobs. Who wouldn’t want that during these hard times? But at what cost Continue reading

Share

Jun 12

Myth vs. Reality: There Aren’t Tigers in Africa?

Contrary to popular belief, tigers are not native to Africa. In fact, the only tigers that live on the entire continent are those used for breeding in zoos or on other special reserves. Personally, I was shocked when I heard this fact. How are there no tigers in Africa? What about the lions, and elephants, and zebras? They’re all real, right? All my life, I had this image of Africa, which came straight out of a scene of the Lion King, with the “Circle of Life” song playing around in the background. Where had my ignorance  come from?
Think back to childhood. To those puzzle maps, or those interactive globes (for the younger crowd) you used to play with. Think closely about the images that were shown on the geography learning games. A Statue of Liberty marked New York City. There was an Eiffel Tower in Paris. And the Taj Mahal was in India. But if you looked to at any of the countries in Africa? There were only animals. No great structures, or modern skyscrapers. Just pictures of huts, and tribal masks, and elephants roaming the safari.

I would like the say that I grew out of my childhood ignorance by middle school. Or maybe even high school. However, in reality, it wasn’t until my sophomore year in college that I learned that maybe there was more to all of the countries within Africa than just a bunch of animals running around, with some indigenous tribes trailing behind. I finally learned that there was more to the continent than extreme poverty, political turmoil, and an out-of-control AIDS epidemic. While it is true that some areas within Africa do have these problems, these should not be the only images that we should have to represent an entire continent. Overwhelmingly these images, which highlight an African continent in crisis in the media, far outnumber any of those which demonstrate a prosperous, culturally-rich continent.

For example, for years, millions of Kenyan have used their cell phones as mobile bank accounts. About 10% of Kenya’s GDP is due to financial transactions that are made with cell phones. However, most Americans are shocked when they learn that Africans even have phones in the first place. And Kenya’s not the only one. All of the countries are rich with history and natural resources, and many have up-and-coming business centers. Currently, rapid urbanization is taking place all over the continent of Africa, as there are now 52 cities with populations over one million. And as for politics? Ever heard of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf? The current President of Liberia? She was elected President in 2005, and then successfully ran for re-election again in Liberia in 2011. An increasing amount of countries both in Africa, and around the world, are electing female heads of state. Seems awfully “backwards” that the United States still has not worked its way into that coveted group.

How did such images of savagery, and primitivism, Continue reading

Share

Jun 12

Celebrating 100 Years with the Girl Scouts of America

The Girl Scouts of the USA celebrated their 100th anniversary this year on March 12th, making them one of the oldest and largest women’s organizations in the country. With approximately 3.2 million current members and 59 million alumnae, chances are good that either you or someone you know has been or still is a member of the Girl Scouts. But what do you really know about the organization as a whole? Who do they help? How do they do it? Where does their success come from?

Being a Girl Scout means different things to different people. For me, it meant hanging out with my friends as a Brownie Girl Scout and learning about my community. So that’s all the Girl Scouts were to me: a positive, pleasant memory, but not more. Or so I thought. But studies have shown that girls who were members of the Girl Scouts are more likely to vote, volunteer, receive higher education, and view themselves as competent and capable in their lives. I do all of these things so maybe the Girl Scouts had a bigger impact on my life than I thought.

This of course led me to start researching the Girl Scouts, so I could learn more about the organization myself. I started reading the stories of other girls to see what being a Girl Scout had meant for them. For some girls, it meant having a group of sisters they wouldn’t otherwise have. For others, it was a launch pad for spreading their ideas and making a difference in the world, through the To Get Her There program. Everyone has their own unique experience, but the general theme was always the same: female empowerment. The program teaches girls from all different socioeconomic groups and ethnicities to be strong and to learn to manage their problems. The Girl Scouts can’t address every issue that members face, but I don’t think that’s their goal. Instead, they give girls the tools to respond to any situation and take care of themselves. In other words, they’re taught how to fish instead of being given the fish.

The Girl Scouts’ began as an organization meant to bring young girls together in a time when women had far fewer rights than they do today and gradually expanded until they had troops worldwide with the same goal of improving girls’ lives. They raise money for charities, encourage members to start their own movements, and spread awareness about social issues. These are all good things, but they’re also things that other organizations do as well. So what sets the Girl Scouts apart? Their troops. These Girl Scout troops become almost like a family within the organization for the girls. They create a social network around the globe, making them a part of something larger than themselves. This connection is what leads to their lifelong activism. You only need to look at the gathering the Girl Scouts hosted on the national mall this weekend to see just how important that community is to these women. Approximately 250,00 Girl Scouts came from around the country just to celebrate the organization’s centennial for a few hours.

But how has the organization continued and thrived for so many years? Their success seems to come from their ability to adapt to the social environment and remain relevant in ever-changing times. They responded to the social issues of their time whether that was one of the World Wars, the Great Depression, civil rights activism, or the AIDS epidemic and tailored their learning and their good work around addressing those specific problems. The organization has a sustainable impact not only on the specific work they do, but also Continue reading

Share

Jun 08

The Sahel Crisis: Social Media vs. News Media in a Refugee Crisis

Have you seen much news media coverage about the crisis in the Sahel? I haven’t. Not much at all, actually. The first I heard of the Sahel food and refugee crisis ravaging Africa’s Sahel region was in a tweet. There has actually been a lot of social media coverage on what’s happening thanks to an UNICEF campaign, #SahelNOW that swept Facebook and Twitter. After doing a bit of research on why I haven’t seen much in the news media and have in social media I got to thinking about how refugee situations are actually covered in the news media versus social media.

At first I thought, maybe I just hadn’t caught the Sahel headlines at my regular go-to news websites. I investigated first by Google searching about the crisis and then by searching some of the major news sites. Surprisingly, almost all of the first two pages of the Google search were reports from international aid organizations’ websites or news agencies reporting on UN reports of the crisis. After searching major news sites, I was surprised how little coverage there was. Only those news sites that were foreign based or nontraditional online news sources (Al Jazeera English, Huffington Post, BBC News, Reuters) had both recent and ongoing news stories of the crisis situation, whereas national news sites (The New York Times, ABC News, MSNBC) had maybe a story or two.

This says a lot about news media coverage of crisis and refugee situations that seems to be ongoing. US news outlets overall just don’t provide continuous coverage of refugee situations. Sadly I’m not surprised, but I am concerned. I’ll admit that I get why they don’t or can’t. Refugee crises often occur in remote regions where news outlets may not have staff and ongoing (sometimes for decades) crises are not events that constantly demands headlines. But, it is dangerous to forget that a crisis, like what is happening in the Sahel, is happening right now. People stuck in these situations are already vulnerable, but to be forgotten by the rest of the world only makes their situation worse.

This is where social media has stepped in. Social media generates a lot of interest, especially worldwide; and can effectively put the issue “on the map.” Isn’t this where we’re getting most of our news information anyways (or at least the shift is going this way)? Social media has taken on the role as the newest form of education and awareness-raising on refugee and other humanitarian crises.

The #SahelNOW campaign was obviously trying to do this and they did so by mimicking the same tactics that lead to the widespread initial success of Kony 2012. But, was it successful or did it suffer the same fate as Kony 2012? Is it another example of slacktivism? I would have to say yes on all accounts. UNICEF data shows that the campaign was successful in getting the refugee crisis noticed and mentioned rapidly throughout social media sites (in part thanks, no doubt, to those always useful celeb endorsements from Selena Gomez and Shakira) and even brought the issue to traditional media agencies, like CNN. However, their data also shows that when they weren’t running a huge media push for the campaign, interest dwindled.  So, it appears we do have another case of slacktivism by definition. Is this good or is this bad?

Personally I think organizations like UNICEF need to learn the lessons from the Kony 2012 campaign and innovate based off what worked and what didn’t to maintain active interest. Social media has so much potential to raise awareness on issues like refugee crises, it’s just a matter of how to harness and sustain this awareness. I don’t want to sound like I have the answers, because I don’t. But, it will be interesting to see what the next campaign will be and what strategies whoever they are will come up with. Will it be more of the same or will we see the next wave in social media awareness?

Share

Jun 07

It’s Not Time to Retire the “Pink Collar” Label Just Yet

A recent study was released, which compared women’s median wages to those of men who held the same jobs. The study compared the 20 Most Common Occupations for Women with their male counterparts. Among the top five occupations on the list? Secretaries and administrative assistants. Elementary and middle school teachers. Registered nurses. Nursing, psychiatric, and home health aides. And customer service representatives.

The occupations themselves were not what caught my eye.  Almost half of my friends are currently studying to be teachers. Many others are nursing students. Such majors are common for college undergraduates. Rather, what caught my eye was something that they all had in common. They were all so-called “pink collar” jobs.

What are pink collar jobs exactly? Pink collar occupations are white collar jobs that have been historically female dominated. They’re often demoted to the status of “semi-professions” among the working world, therefore awarding them less prestige, less autonomy, and more oversight and monitoring due to their female leanings. And as always, they come with lower paychecks. Some examples of pink collar occupations are nurses, teachers, secretaries, and librarians. Others include jobs in the service sector, such as a waitresses, nannies, receptionists, cosmetologists, and florists.

Last month, the New York Times published an article about the increasing number of men in “pink collar” jobs in the United States. The report stated that men have been joining such female dominated fields like teaching and nursing in increased numbers in the last decade. And it’s not just foreign born, less-educated men like in the past. In the last decade or so, men of all races and ages have been hopping onto the “pink collar” bandwagon. And they’re a well educated bunch too, with over a third having a college education to their name. For many, the most shocking part of the study was that men were not joining such professions out of desperation, but out of desire.

However, men aren’t having a hard time managing being the minority in such female dominated fields. Quite the opposite in fact. Interestingly enough, when men enter such “pink collar” jobs, the opposite of the glass ceiling effect takes place. In what many call is the “glass escalator” effect, men quickly work their way up the ladder in the pink collar occupations. Upward job mobility is swift and painless, often landing the male in management positions in little to no time. Men glide up the glass escalator, surpassing women with equal qualifications in pay, benefits, and positions. Why shouldn’t men flock to such professions, which guarantee them consistent pay and swift upward job mobility?

In response to the New York Times article, writer Amy Tennery wrote an article called “The Term Pink Collar is Silly and Outdated- Let’s Retire It” for Time Magazine. Her article highlighted the point that “pink collar” is an outdated term, which is in serious need of reform. That the label has been historically used to classify the difference between women’s work and men’s work, but no longer applies since about a third of men’s job growth has been in the female dominated sector in the last decade. Why keep a term, which no longer fits the label? Her final line? ““Pink collar” is silly and outdated — and keeping it around is to the detriment of everyone.”


However, I disagree. It’s not the term, which is holding women back. And though men are entering female dominated fields, it’s often to their own benefit. To get rid of the term is to pretend that sex segregation in the workplace is over. That it doesn’t exist. It ignores the fact that women are still paid less than men across the board. Studies show that despite having higher college GPAs in every single subject in college, they only make about 80% of what their male counterparts do just a year out of college.


I’m not against removing the label “pink collar” from occupations like teaching and nursing. Far from it. However, there’s a time and a place for such events to occur. When, and only when, women in such jobs are given the same rights to equal pay, prestige, and opportunities as men in the workplace should such a label be taken away. Removing the label “pink collar” before such action takes place would be the real detriment.

Share

Jun 06

World Environment Day 2012: What does it mean to you?

Did you know that June 5th is World Environment Day? Yeah, me either. That is until I noticed a tweet a few days ago that alerted me to this fact. If you’re into all things environmental you probably already know about this. If you’re not, you’re probably asking yourself “Wait, what is she talking about?” Rightfully so. I do not consider myself a seasoned environmental news junkie. This is something that I have only recently gotten into within the past six months thank to an environmental health course I took during school. Regardless I thought this was something worth checking out.

This year’s World Environment Day theme is ‘Green Economy: Does it include YOU?”  This theme, in my opinion, is particularly important and telling of the current state and future direction in which the conversation on environmental issues is heading. This theme is the first time that the individual has been addressed directly through a question. It begs each of us consider our role in our national and global green economy, and forces us to ask ourselves “Are we included?” The most important part of the question isn’t whether you are included or not, it’s whether you are excluded. It’s a call to action. The theme goes beyond the narrow view of just environmental problems. It broadens the idea of what is involved in environmental action to include social inclusion and equity.

So, what is a green economy and what does it mean to be included in it? The World Environment Day website breaks down a green economy into very simple terms: “low carbon, resource efficient and socially inclusive.” The first two terms make sense to me and if asked to define green economy, I probably would have pulled this out of the air. But the third term, “socially inclusive”, is where I got to thinking. The site goes on to explain that this economy is one where employment and income are spurred on by investments, both public and private, in sound green strategies, policies, and regulations. I’m starting to see where the individual, or the idea of social inclusion, fits in (or could fit in if they weren’t excluded).

What it seems to boil down to is: do you have opportunities within your own country to take part in (through employment, thus generating an income) green ventures? If you have a green business or want to start one, is the governmental support there? Do you have a voice in politics where you could help pass policies, even at the local level, to help initiate a greener community? Do you have something as simple as the option to recycle?

This theme speaks to larger issues beyond just the environment and captures the idea that the solution is not just to an environmental problem. It’s to a multilayered problem and a multilayered solution that is political, economical, equitable and personal. It’s all of these and more. Take a few minutes just to go over in your head: does a green economy include you?

I considered this myself. I can recycle, I can vote on environmental issues, I have taken classes on environmental issues, and I could probably get an education for a career in the green economy sector. However, when I look beyond personal actions that I could take, I see that my country does not offer me all the potential of a green economy. The US government and businesses still have not invested in green economies like Europe and China. Green jobs are out there, but still represent only a small fraction of total employment in the US.

The thing is I know that I’m included, at least in some part, in my green economy. But, I also know that there are so many others in my own city and in my own country that continue to be excluded through lack of education and job opportunities. The green economy is such a small part of my countries’ economy, that it is not possible for everyone to equitably be included. So take a moment today (consider it your contribution to World Environment Day) to think about whether you are included in your green economy, and to think about who else is not and why.

Share

Jun 06

Human Smugglers: The Real Immigration Issue

The United States has a massive immigrant population,  approximately 11 million of whom are here undocumented. Individuals without documentation are often at the center of law enforcement efforts, the focus of all research concerning immigration, and the focus of people’s anger and problems with immigration in this country. But why is that the case? What about the organizations that smuggle individuals into America? Why are they somehow less at fault and less guilty in the eyes of the public and more importantly in the eyes of law enforcement than the people coming here mostly peacefully?

Imagine a woman attempting to come to the United States without documentation through the services of a human smuggling organization. She is trying to join her husband who’s already here and has paid the smugglers thousands of dollars to bring her over the border. If she’s lucky, she’ll be taken to her final destination to live safely in America. If she’s not, she could face extreme weather conditions, dehydration, starvation, physical or sexual abuse, or kidnapping to name some possibilities. If any of these things happened, who would be the “bad guy” or the “criminal” in the story? The woman trying to join her family or the smugglers taking advantage of her?

I’m not arguing that the woman is completely guilt free. She did choose to put herself in that position and try to come to America without documentation. Yes, she broke the law. But so did the smugglers, and they had help. Human smuggling rings have become huge businesses that make millions of dollars a year bringing people to the US. In the past 10 years, they’ve grown so much that they now account for 90% of the undocumented immigrants who end up in this country. But they don’t just bring people in by hiding them, they also make wide use of bribes to encourage people’s silence. This means they engage in numerous criminal activities, while undocumented immigrants do not. Someone who comes to this country without documentation could be deported if they were discovered, but they wouldn’t be convicted of a crime because simply being here is not a criminal act so. And yet in a discussion surrounding undocumented immigrants you’ll probably hear how they are the problem and the “criminals”. It’s highly unlikely you’ll hear anything about smugglers or any repercussions they should potentially face.

The US spends billions of dollars trying to find and deport undocumented immigrants through a number of means but spends almost no money trying to stop the crime organizations that smuggle these people into the country in the first place. If a person does get caught smuggling someone into the country, he could face up to 10 years in prison for each felony conviction he receives. But this only applies to the specific person caught assisting people and only If they’re caught, no one else within the organization would be affected. Once the smugglers separate from the people they bring to the US they have almost no risk of getting caught because law enforcement rarely, if ever, seeks to find them. The government is much more interested in finding undocumented residents than they are in finding the people who brought them here. But if you were to look at the situation objectively who is more dangerous for the country: an organized crime circle or people coming to America to find a better life?

Regardless of your feelings towards undocumented immigrants residing in or coming to the United States, you should want to stop these smugglers. If you want to stop undocumented workers from coming to the US, then you should want to stop the organization that brings them here. If you want to protect undocumented workers, then you should want to stop the organization that takes advantage of them and hurts them. It’s the same goal either way. These smugglers take advantage of people in a weak position and exploit the system to make money. They care about their business, not about the people involved or anyone who could potentially get hurt. Aren’t they then the real problem in this situation? Aren’t they the ones who law enforcement should focus on rather than the law-abiding residents of the United States?

Share