Archive for the ‘Migrant Crisis’ Category

The Kala Pani Migration: An Indian Story Thats Hardly Discussed in India – The Wire

In India, Kala Pani is associated with the Cellular Jail in Port Blair where freedom fighters and dissidents were sent by the British colonial authorities in the early 20th century. When used in the diaspora, it refers to the large-scale migration out of India in the 1830s when hundreds of thousands of Indians, both willingly and unwillingly, left the subcontinent and crossed the Kala Pani (the Black Waters) to work in the sugar colonies as indentured labourers, or bound coolies. These emigrants were responding to the need for labour on plantations after slavery was abolished in 1834 and terminated in 1838. Some 1.25 million emigrants were taken to Fiji and Mauritius, as well as the British, French and Dutch Caribbean.

Kala Pani Crossings: Revisiting 19th Century Migrations From Indias PerspectiveEdited by Ashutosh Bhardwaj and Judith Misrahi-Barak Routledge, 2022

However, even if the historiography is now abundant and detailed, even if the academic criticism that has been published has made creations in literature, film and the arts shine brighter, the diasporic point of view has prevailed. Ashutosh Kumar had remarked there was a curious lacuna regarding indenture as far as 19th century mainstream Indian political and politico-economic discourse [was] concerned. And yet, it seems that by the time MK Gandhi returned to India in 1915, the tragedy of the indentured labourers had found a firm and sympathetic expression in literary works emerging from Bihar and eastern UP, the area that had witnessed most of the migration. Consequently, several major journals dedicated large sections to the distressful condition of indentured labourers in Mauritius, British Guiana, Fiji, and South Africa.

Chandwas among the most influential Hindi journals of that era. Itdevoted an entire issue (January 1926) to the migration, and Premchands short storyShudrawas the highlight. Kamal Kishore Goenka callsShudrathe first work of Hindi fiction on the indentured, and perhaps the first Indian work as well.

There is thus a curious imbalance in the fact that while the diaspora literature written by those whose forefathers left India to work as indentured labourers has been a topic of major academic and political discourse, very scant attention has been given in India to those members of the early diaspora and to their descendants. Their stories and memories continue to exist in the popular imagination, but do not figure in curricula or political manifestos.

At the end of the first decade of the 21st century, however, an internationally acclaimed writer of Indian origin, an American journalist of Indo-Guyanese descent, and an Indian academic provided a game-changer. Between 2008 and 2015, Amitav GhoshsIbis Trilogywas published. Gaiutra BahadursCoolie Woman: the Odyssey of Indenturewas published in 2013. And Ashutosh KumarsCoolies of the Empirewas published in 2017. In less than 10 years, novel writing, non-fiction, archival work and academic research operated in striking conjunction to give Kala Pani crossings fresh momentum.

As this volume was being prepared, the Covid-19 crisis shook us out of our certitudes. How tragically ironic that the phrase migrant crisis, which used to refer to the Mediterranean in the wake of the Arab Spring in 2011, now refers to India during the Covid-19 pandemic. The 1830s migrations were prompted by the colonial powers out of greed, though the indentured eventually negotiated it to their advantage and managed to wrest a narrative, a house of their own. A century later, the post-Partition migration was the complicated consequence of colonial rule, communalism and failure of Indian politics. But in the 21st century, the Indian state cannot blame any outsider for the misery. A large number of those on the roads in the spring and summer of 2020 are natives of the villages and towns in UP and Bihar from where indentured labour had migrated. Those who couldnt migrate to foreign shores two centuries before and shifted to Indian cities after Partition were now forced to return to what the state believes is their original land.

When a possible discourse on Indian perspectives of Kala Pani migrations began to emerge in the transnational conversations between the co-editors of this volume, one Indian and the other a diaspora scholar based in France, neither realised the waters that would be crossed. Questions were raised how come this history is better known out of India than in India itself? Doesnt one need, at some stage, to invert the mirror, to look within and retrieve this forgotten chapter of Indian history? What would be the advantages of shining a torch onto a history that had been kept invisible? Had it been neatly made invisible, by design or default, or are we once again dealing with the messy business of memory, history and historiography? How can those archives of the past bear an impact on our reading of the present and influence our shaping of the future?

(Excerpted with permission fromKala Pani Crossings: Revisiting 19th Century Migrations From Indias Perspective, Routledge India)

Read more from the original source:
The Kala Pani Migration: An Indian Story Thats Hardly Discussed in India - The Wire

Attacking abortion rights, migrants babies, and more — how right-wing media is exploiting the baby formula crisis for the GOP’s culture war – Media…

Right-wing media are weaponizing fake outrage about a severe baby formula shortagein the U.S. for political gain, using the crisis to attack migrant babies, bash abortion rights, complain about aid to Ukraine, and accuse President Joe Biden of mismanaging and exacerbating the shortage.

The U.S. is facing a dangerous formula shortage that has parents scrambling to feed their babies and stores rationing products. In some states, over 50% of formula products are out of stock. Less than half of infants in the U.S. are exclusively breastfed through 3 months of age, so most parents rely on formula to help feed their children before they are ready for solid foods.

The shortage is partly a result of corporate conglomeration as of 2018, just four companies control nearly 90% of the formula market. In addition, poor federal oversight and weak safety standards at key manufacturing plants led to massive recalls for contaminated formula. Supply chain issues exacerbated by the pandemic have only made the shortage worse.

In response to the shortage, the Biden administration has said that it is working with the Food and Drug Administration to increase production and potentially loosen restrictions on imported formula, and it has asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate price gouging. And chief of staff Ron Klain has reportedly told a member of Congress the White House is also absolutely and strongly considering having President Joe Biden use the Defense Production Act to increase the supply of formula.

Meanwhile, right-wing media outlets, figures, and guests have been fueling their ongoing culture war by linking the formula crisis to hot-button issues like abortion and Ukraine to further outrage their audience.

Fox News hosts and other right-wing pundits suggestedthat the government should starve migrant babies in detention because U.S.-born babies and their parents are facing a formula shortage. Aside from the obvious moral duty to feed human beings in its care, the government is legally required to provide adequate nutrition including formula when appropriate for incarcerated immigrants.

Some right-wing pundits claimed that the Biden administration doesnt care about the formula shortage because it is pro-choice and wants to kill babies, or that the Biden administration is proposing abortion as a solution to the formula shortage. Some claimed Democrats are hypocrites, implying they are only worried about abortion rights and not the formula shortage.

Some right-wing media figures and guests suggested that instead of attempting to send $40 billion to Ukraine to help the country fend off the Russian invasion, Congress should use that money to produce baby formula. Others claimed that Bidens support of aid for Ukraine during the formula shortage proves he doesnt care about the welfare of people in the U.S.

Right-wing media figures accused the president of not taking the shortage seriously and demanded that he address the crisis from his bully pulpit. Some claimed the shortage was the latest casualty of inflation, which they also blamed on the president.

See the rest here:
Attacking abortion rights, migrants babies, and more -- how right-wing media is exploiting the baby formula crisis for the GOP's culture war - Media...

Mountains of grain left to rot as Vladimir Putin ‘blackmails the world’ – The Telegraph

It is a sobering assessment - not least because Russia under Communism styled itself as the champion of the worlds poor. But it is not just Africa that has to worry, she says. For where food shortages and famines prevail, and where governments fall, people will inevitably flee - fuelling, she fears, a repeat of the migrant crisis of 2015 that saw millions trying to reach Europe from sub-Saharan Africa.

You already have a refugee crisis in Europe with people fleeing there from this war in Ukraine, she said. You may now get a refugee crisis from hunger in third countries too.

Her warnings may sound apocalyptic - yet no more than those of the Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey, who used that very word this week when he warned that the Russian blockade could lead to famines worldwide.

That is a major worry, and it is not just a major worry for this country, it is a major worry for the developing world as well, he said. Sorry for being apocalyptic, but that is a major concern.

The comments by Mr Bailey - who like most central bankers normally measures his words carefully - reflect an awareness among world leaders that the Ukraine food crisis could not have come at a worse time for the developing world. As well as the aftershocks of the Covid pandemic, inflation rates and oil prices are already rising, and parts of Africa are gripped by drought.

Ukraine is doing its best to address the crisis, mindful that its own agricultural workers livelihoods are in jeopardy too. Its farmers are a resourceful bunch, and have already been celebrated in the war for using their tractors to tow Russian tanks off the battlefield when they run out of fuel.

Many have continued to farm despite being near frontlines, some even wearing flak jackets when ploughing. Russian aggression continues mostly against big cities, but less so in the countryside where the planting goes, so we expect to plant 90 per cent of our fields as normal, said Ms Stoyanova.

The problem, though, is in getting their product to market. A new harvest is due in July and August, and already there is diminishing room available to store it. Efforts to try to transport some of the rising grain mountains in Odesa into neighbouring Romania and Poland by land face formidable difficulties.

Trains and trucks, at best, can only carry a fraction of the volume of todays giant cargo freighters. And European railways also operate on a different gauge - leading to lengthy hold-ups at the border while cargos are transferred laboriously from one train to another.

We normally export 160 million tonnes of cargo by sea and 90 million by train and truck, said Mr Berestenko. Now were having to do it all by land, and its just not possible. Its not just our infrastructure that isnt up to it, its our neighbours infrastructure too.

See the original post here:
Mountains of grain left to rot as Vladimir Putin 'blackmails the world' - The Telegraph

Brit Hume: Administration isn’t doing enough to solve migrant crisis – Fox News

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Fox News senior political analyst Brit Humereacted to migrant buses heading to Washington, D.C., on "Special Report" Wednesday.

BRIT HUME: It is, in a sense, a publicity stunt. It's probably no accident that they were dropping the migrants off just outside our bureau in Washington. Convenient, right? And I wonder how many other news organizations will really cover this event. Obviously, the intention is to shame the politicians in Washington, particularly in the administration, who seem unwilling or unable to do anything to really stop the flow of migrants across the border. Now, with Title 42 about to be lifted, even though they're leaving other pandemic-related restrictions in place, they have a case. They have a strong case because I think the sense people get in this country is that these migrants are pouring across the border illegally. They're staying here indefinitely and this administration is not trying to do very much about it at all.

WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW BELOW:

Link:
Brit Hume: Administration isn't doing enough to solve migrant crisis - Fox News

How Does the US Refugee System Work? – Council on Foreign Relations

Introduction

Until recently, the United States was the worlds top country for refugee admissions. From taking in hundreds of thousands of Europeans displaced by World War II to welcoming those escaping from communist regimes in Europe and Asia during the Cold War, the United States has helped define protections for refugees under international humanitarian law. Beginning in 1980, the U.S. government moved from an ad hoc approach to the permanent, standardized system for identifying, vetting, and resettling prospective refugees that is still in use today.

More From Our Experts

The size of the U.S. refugee program has often fluctuated. The war in Syria and the resulting migration crisis in Europe increased policymakers scrutiny of arrivals from the Middle East, beginning with the administration of President Barack Obama. President Donald Trump ratcheted up that scrutiny with a ban on refugees from certain countries and sharp cuts to overall refugee admissions, sparking new debate over the national security implications of refugee policy. As conflict in places such as Afghanistan and Ukraine displaces millions of people, President Joe Biden has pledged to rebuild the U.S. refugee program.

More on:

Refugees and Displaced Persons

United States

Donald Trump

Immigration and Migration

Joe Biden

There are several different terms used to describe people who move from one place to another, either voluntarily or under threat of force. With no universal legal definition, migrant is an umbrella term for people who leave their homes and often cross international borders, whether to seek economic opportunity or escape persecution.

Daily News Brief

A summary of global news developments with CFR analysis delivered to your inbox each morning.Most weekdays.

A weekly digest of the latestfrom CFR on the biggest foreign policy stories of the week, featuring briefs, opinions, and explainers. Every Friday.

A curation of original analyses, data visualizations, and commentaries, examining the debates and efforts to improve health worldwide.Weekly.

As defined by U.S. law and the 1951 Refugee Convention, refugees are migrants seeking entry from a third country who are able to demonstrate that they have been persecuted, or have reason to fear persecution, on the basis of one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. According to the UN refugee agency, there were nearly twenty-one million refugees worldwide as of mid-2021, more than half of whom came from just four countries: Syria, Afghanistan, South Sudan, and Myanmar, in descending order.

Asylum seekers are those who meet the criteria for refugee status but apply from within the United States, or at ports of entry, after arriving under a different status. Asylum seekers follow a different protocol than those applying for refugee status.

More From Our Experts

For more than seventy-five years, the United States has accepted migrants who would be identified under current international law as refugees. In the wake of World War II, the United States passed its first refugee legislation to manage the resettlement of some 650,000 displaced Europeans. Throughout the Cold War, the United States accepted refugees fleeing from communist regimes, such as those in China, Cuba, and Eastern Europe.

But the countrys official federal effort to resettle refugees, known as the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), was not created until passage of the Refugee Act of 1980. Prior to 1980, legislation that authorized the acceptance of refugees was passed primarily on an ad hoc basis, often responding to ongoing mass migrations. It was not until after the fall of South Vietnam to communist forces in 1975, when the United States began taking in hundreds of thousands of Southeast Asian refugees, that Congress established a more standardized system.

More on:

Refugees and Displaced Persons

United States

Donald Trump

Immigration and Migration

Joe Biden

The 1980 legislation, signed by President Jimmy Carter, established permanent procedures for vetting, admitting, and resettling refugees into the country; incorporated the official definition of the term refugee; increased the number of refugees to be admitted annually to fifty thousand; and granted the president authority to admit additional refugees in emergencies. Since that law was passed, the United States has admitted more than three million refugees.

The number of refugees admitted into the United States annually has generally declined from more than 200,000 at the start of the program in 1980 to approximately 11,400 in 2021. Levels of refugee admissions fluctuated dramatically throughout that time period, falling through the 1980s and spiking again in the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Annual numerical ceilings on refugee admissions are proposed by the president and require congressional approval. Following the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush suspended refugee admissions for several months, citing national security concerns. From 2001 to 2015, caps on refugee admissions stayed between seventy thousand and eighty thousand, though both the Bush and Obama administrations regularly admitted fewer people than the ceilings allowed.

In 2016, President Obama increased an earlier approved ceiling of eighty thousand to allow in an additional five thousand refugees as part of an effort to address a growing migration crisis caused by worsening conflict in Syria. As humanitarian crises elsewhere grew more dire, including in Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama proposed that the United States set a ceiling of 110,000 refugee admissions for fiscal year 2017.

President Trump reversed Obamas proposed ceiling by capping the number of refugees allowed into the country in fiscal year 2017 at fifty thousand. He lowered this ceiling further to forty-five thousand for 2018, then thirty thousand for 2019, and 18,000 for 2020. His administration argued that the reduction was necessary to direct more government resources to the backlog of applications from nearly eight hundred thousand asylum seekers who had reached the southern U.S. border. Despite critics countering that the asylum and refugee programs have little bearing on one another, Trump set an even lower ceiling of fifteen thousand for fiscal year 2021by far the lowest cap since the programs start.

President Biden has promised to reverse this downward trend. In May 2021, he revised the annual admissions cap to 62,500 for the remainder of the year, and in October, he doubled the ceiling for fiscal year 2022 to 125,000, with the majority of admission slots allocated to refugees from Africa and Southeast Asia. Even so, it is unclear how quickly Trump-era reductions can be reversed. The United States accepted fewer than twelve thousand refugees in 2021; some advocacy groups argue that the annual cap should proportionately reflect the number of refugees worldwide.

The United States has consistently received refugees from Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America, though the total number of admissions has changed dramatically for some regions in the time since the U.S. refugee resettlement program was created. Immediately following passage of the 1980 act, more than two hundred thousand refugeesthe highest total in recent historywere admitted to the country; the vast majority originated in Southeast Asian countries, including Cambodia and Vietnam.

Refugees admitted to the United States from former Soviet countries increased sharply in the decade beginning in 1989. From 2010 to 2020, the highest number of refugees came from Myanmar, Iraq, and Bhutan, in descending order. By comparison, in 2021, the countries with the highest number of refugees admitted to the United States were the Democratic Republic of Congo, Syria, Afghanistan, and Ukraine, in descending order.

In 2017, Trump issued an executive order that temporarily prohibited the entry of nationals of seven Muslim-majority countriesIran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemenand indefinitely barred all Syrian refugees. (Admissions for Syrians restarted in January 2018.) The executive order also tightened visa restrictions that had been imposed under Obama on those seven countries. The Trump administration revised the order twice amid legal challenges, until April 2018, when the Supreme Court allowed the third version of the order to stand.

Trump also heavily criticized a resettlement deal with Australia finalized by Obama, in which the United States was to take 1,250 refugees currently being held by Australian authorities in offshore detention centers. Many of these refugees were from Iran and Somalia, countries included in the third iteration of the travel ban. By June 2021, Washington had resettled resettled 968 refugees as part of the deal.

The U.S. State Department, in consultation with a constellation of other agencies and organizations, manages the process through its refugee admission program, USRAP. The first step for a potential refugee abroad is most often to register with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). UNHCR officials collect documentation and perform an initial screening and then refer qualifying individuals to State Department Resettlement Support Centers (RSCs), of which there are nine around the world. Sometimes this referral is done by a U.S. embassy or a nongovernmental organization.

Then, RSC officials interview the applicants, verify their personal data, and submit their information for background checks by a suite of U.S. national security agencies. These security checks [PDF] include multiple forms of biometric screening, such as cross-checks of global fingerprint databases and medical tests.

If none of these inquiries produce problematic results, including criminal histories, past immigration violations, connections to terrorist groups, or communicable diseases, the applicant can be cleared for entry to the United States. The entire admissions process generally takes between eighteen months and two years to complete.

The three primary federal government agencies involved in the refugee resettlement process are the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The State Departments Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) is the first U.S. government point of contact; it coordinates the process with all other agencies until a refugee is resettled.

Through its Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) branch, DHS is the principal agency responsible for vetting refugee applicants; USCIS makes the final determination on whether to approve resettlement applications. Its security review uses the resources and databases of several other national security agencies, including the National Counterterrorism Center, FBI, Department of Defense, and multiple U.S. intelligence agencies.

Once settled in the United States, refugees are generally in the hands of charity and other volunteer agencies that specialize in resettlement, such as the International Rescue Committee. The State Departments Reception and Placement Program provides funding to go toward refugees rent, furnishings, food, and clothing. After three months, this responsibility shifts to HHS, which provides longer-term cash and medical assistance, as well as other social services, including language classes and employment training. After the Trump administrations cuts to the refugee admission ceiling, all nine nongovernmental agencies that assist with resettlement downsized by closing offices or laying off staff.

Several intergovernmental organizations play a crucial role at various points. The United Nations is primarily responsible for referring qualified applicants to U.S. authorities, while the International Organization for Migration coordinates refugees travel to the United States.

Today, refugees are resettled in forty-nine U.S. states, though there are several states that generally resettle higher numbers than others. According to the Migration Policy Institute, California, Washington, and Texas took in the highest number of refugees in fiscal year 2020, making up 27 percent of all refugee admissions that year. Between fiscal years 2010 and 2020, one-third of all 601,000 resettled refugees went to just five states.

The logistics of refugee resettlement are largely handled by nine domestic resettlement agencies, many of them faith-based organizations such as the Church World Service and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Representatives of these organizations meet and review the biographical data of the refugees selected by the State Departments Refugee Support Centers abroad to determine where they should be resettled. As part of this process, federal law requires that resettlement agencies consult with local authorities [PDF], including law enforcement, emergency services, and public schools.

While this consultation is required, the 1980 Refugee Act gives the federal government final authority over whether to admit refugees and where they should be resettled. In the wake of the 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, which were carried out by EU citizens who may have returned to Europe from the Middle East via refugee flows, more than thirty U.S. governors protested the resettlement of any Syrian refugees in their states. Legal experts say that while states cannot directly block federal government decisions on where to place refugees, they can complicate the process by directing state agencies to refuse to cooperate with resettlement agencies, as the governors of Texas and Michigan did in 2015.

Out of the more than three million refugees accepted by the United States over the past four decades, a handful have been implicated in terrorist plots. According to a 2016 study by the libertarian-leaning CATO Institute, of the 154 foreign-born terrorists who committed attacks in the United States since 1975, twenty were refugees. Of these attacks, only three proved deadly, and all three took place before 1980, when the Refugee Act created the current screening procedures.

Many of those responsible for recent attacks have been U.S. citizens, including the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooter, one of the perpetrators of the 2015 San Bernardino attacks, and the 2009 Fort Hood shooter. The 9/11 hijackers were in the country on tourist or business visas. Others were the children of asylees, including the 2016 Manhattan bomber, whose father had been an Afghan refugee, and the Tsarnaev brothers, who carried out the Boston Marathon bombing and whose parents fled war-torn Chechnya.

Trump administration officials often voiced concerns over the vetting process for incoming refugees. But Biden and other critics condemned Trumps rhetoric as scaremongering, and Biden campaigned on restoring U.S. leadership on global refugee resettlement. In February 2021, as part of his administrations plan to rebuild and enhance the countrys refugee program, he pledged to improve USRAP vetting to make it more efficient, meaningful, and fair.

Follow this link:
How Does the US Refugee System Work? - Council on Foreign Relations