Winter is Coming...

With winter fast approaching, aid organizations are struggling to provide the millions of people fleeing civil war and terrorism in Iraq and Syria. In many areas, refugees living in self-made shelters with inadequate insulation, heating, or winter clothes. In Lebanon there are 1.2 million refugees living outside of camps in informal settlements including unfinished or abandoned buildings, garages, and open worksites and warehouses, none of which offer protection from freezing winter weather. 

Yazidi families crossing into Turkey in August, 2014
(http://www.worldbulletin.net/haber/143166/yazidis-praise-tolerant-turkey-amid-iraq-crisis)

There are almost 2 million Syrian refugees in Turkey with over 300,000 in Istanbul. Many of these individuals struggle to find and maintain satisfactory shelter because landlords either refuse to rent to refugees, or double the cost of rent. 

There are also rumors that the Bashar al-Assad regime sent Syrians to turn local Turkish populations against genuine refugees. The only support I found for these claims was in a statement from a man named Ahmed Gannam in an article on an English-language Turkish news site called Sunday's Zaman. Mr. Gannam, works as a public relations officer for the Syrian Society for Humanitarian Aid & Development, claims the regime sent men into Turkey to cause disturbances by committing robbery, begging, assault, among other illegal activities. 

Wether these rumors are true or not, and whether or not Turks are discriminating against refugees, the aid and housing being made available to refugees in Turkey and in neighboring nations is not meeting the demand.

The UN recently reported that they had a $58.45 million funding shortfall in refugee support funding. In combination with the steady growth in internal displacement, this funding deficit could leave 1 million Syrian and Iraqi families without help this winter. For some of those Syrians, it will be their fourth winter away from home, but for many others it will be there first, including the 1.9 million Iraqis who were internally displaced during the past year. 

Winter has already hit in Dohuk in the Kurdistan region of northern Iraq. Soon, temperatures will range from 41°F to 3.2°F in the mountains.

Syrians in a refugee camp in Zahle in the Bekaa Valley last winter
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2522054/Britain-America-suspend-aid-Syria-refugees-face-freezing-winter.html)

The areas that will receive the most distributions within Syria will be Aleppo and other northern areas, since they experience the coldest temperatures. UNHCR had hoped to deliver aid 1.4 million over the course of this winter, but because of the funding deficit, it will only be able to provide winter kits to 620,000 through December. 

Unfortunately, Syria and Turkey aren't the only place where aid organizations are struggling to meet the demand for winter assistance. UNCHR and its partners estimate that over 660,000 refugees in Lebanon are in need of assistance to stay warm and dry. With insufficient funds and refugees spread over 1,7000 localities, some families are sure to be left in the cold. 

Syrian Refugees in Turkey

Over 1 million people have flooded into Turkey in order to escape violence in Syria. While Turkey has been applauded for its quick response to such a large and rapid influx of refugees, it hasn't been able to establish sustainable assistance programs. 

 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/world/middleeast/syria-war-developments.html?_r=0)

Turkey is currently hosting 1.6 million Syrians--half of the total number of people who have fled Syria since March 2011--and spent over $4 billion to shelter, feed, and care for these refugees. 220,000 of these refugees are living in government-run camps that provide essential services such as food and basic shelter. The other 1.38 million (about 85%) are in communities along the Turkey-Syrian border.  

Communities often welcome refugees with open arms and residents joins together to provide their guests with assistance. Predictably, this generosity does not last indefinitely, and residents become frustrated with the strain refugees put on the community's resources and finances. Unfortunately, many Syrians feel that they have overstayed their welcome in Turkey, but are still unable to return home due to violence. Turkey is not awarding Syrians official refugee status, and therefore restricting their rights and protections. As a result, many refugees are opening their own unregistered businesses to compete with Turkish businesses. Overcrowding is causing rents to rise and leaving more Syrians destitute and completely reliant on limited welfare programs which Turks consider a financial drain. 

(http://www.unhcr.org/53ff76c99.html)

As is the case with the US/Mexican border, there are reports of refugees being refused entry and suffering abuse as they attempt to cross the border to safety. The difficulty of passing through official checkpoints caused many Syrians to attempt to enter Turkey illegally at unofficial crossings. Between December and August of 2013, there were numerous incidents (ten mentioned in the Amnesty report) when border guards allegedly beat 31 people trying to enter Turkey. At least 17 people were killed by border guards during that same period. 

(http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29314647)

Of course, there are other countries who could shoulder some of the cost of caring for Syrian refugees, but have so far slacked in their responsibilities. Only 28% of the $497 million allotted to Turkey for 2014 by the UN has been committed by international donors, and a recent Amnesty report notes that Turkey has received more refugees from Syria in September of 2014, than the entire EU in the last three years. 

To read the entire Amnesty report, click here or click here for interactive statistics regarding the flow of Syrians into neighboring countries from October.

O Canada!

Canada has recently taken steps to restrict access to social welfare programs and job opportunities to asylum seekers awaiting official refugee status. The new restrictions are hidden in Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's 2015 budget, and would bring the nation's refugee policies closer to those of Great Britain. 

At the moment, asylum seekers in Canada have the same access to social assistance as Canadian citizens, as well as the ability to work and to decide where they will live. These rights are ensured by the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangement Act of 1985 which allows residents to qualify for social assistance regardless of their period of residence in the country. 

The new budget Bill C-43 would create a term of residency requirement to those requesting assistance. This bill would exclude citizens, permanent residents, human trafficking victims, and refugees, leaving only those who have not yet been granted refugee status. 

In the United Kingdom, asylum seekers have only limited access to social assistance programs, a highly restrictive employment policy, and are placed together into pre-selected, and often substandard, housing. This policy rests on the opinion that asylum seekers are not entitled to certain aspects of British society until the legitimacy of their claim of persecution has been proven.

While this policy is publicized as a protection for tax-payers, its affects are harmful for both asylum seekers and British residents. The government policy of segregating asylum seekers until their claim is approved delays integration, an already lengthy process, for years. When claimants are accepted (40% of British asylum seekers are approved, not including those who are successful in appealing rejections) after living in the country for years, they have often lost faith in national and local authorities, have only a tiny social network, and haven't learned English.

On the other hand, Canadian applicants are granted access to social assistance as soon as they enter the country, which allows them to feed, cloth, shelter, and educate their children, and integrate into Canadian neighborhoods. The ability to work and therefore support themselves reduces the strain on homeless shelters and charities, and allows applicants to be an active, contributing member of their new community. If Canada does implement a minimum residency requirement, asylum seekers would settle in areas where such laws are yet to be enforced, which would put an unequal strain on provinces, overwhelm refugee agencies in those areas, and increase the dependency of claimants upon the state. 

(http://coastlinejournal.org/2013/08/15/post-second-education-the-sri-lankan-immigrant-experience/)

7 minutes

According to estimates, there are 11.7 million undocumented immigrants in the United States with at least 50,000 trying to enter the country each month. U.S. employs 21,000 border patrol agents, spends $18 billion on these employees annually, and deports around 1,000 people from the country every day. While the nation has increased spending on immigration enforcement by 300% since 2002, it has only increased its spending for immigration courts (specifically the Executive Office for Immigration Review) by 70% during that time. As a result, cases have piled-up and courts are overwhelmed. Since March 2014, these courts have suffered from a backlog of over 367,000 cases with an average wait time of 578 days.  

Trials for undocumented immigrants are unlike criminal proceedings in that the individual "on trial" is not guaranteed legal representation. About 40% of those in immigration court are representing themselves, and are much more likely to be ruled against than those with an attorney. 


(http://weaselzippers.us/194332-texas-18-out-of-20-illegal-immigrant-minors-skip-their-immigration-court-hearings-on-tuesday/)

For most--regardless of whether or not they are represented by an attorney--court proceedings are unbelievably brief. A recent Washington Post article profiled a family's experience attending their father's immigration trial in which the judge spent only about 7 minutes per case. 

Here are some things that will take more than 7 minutes to complete.

Putting on smoky eye make up,



cleaning your shower or bathtub



drying your hair,



or putting icing on a cake

1. 
   

• 
  

Welcome to Austr-- I mean ស្វាគមន៍ការ មកកាន់ ប្រទេសកម្ពុជា

The Australian and Cambodian Immigration Ministers signed an agreement in late September which will allow refugees who arrive in Australia to be resettled in Cambodia. In exchange for accepting an unspecified number of refugees, Cambodia will be given 40 million Australian dollars as well as extra resettlement costs. The 40 million will be spent on development projects and is in addition to the 79 million in aid that Australia has already given to Cambodia. There are fears that this money will be misused or lost to corruption.  

Immigration Ministers Scott Morrison and Sar Kheng after signing the agreement

(http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-29373198)

Cambodia has a population of about 15 million, 20% of which are living below the poverty line with 37% of children under 5 suffering from chronic malnutrition. The schools system is poor and infamously corrupt. The country is one of the poorest in Asia and over half of the government's money is from international aid. 

Mr. Morrison encouraged the deal, saying that "those found to be in genuine need of protection will now have the opportunity and support to re-establish their lives free from persecution," only months after the Australian government condemned Cambodia's human rights history at a UN human rights hearing. Amnesty International is calling the deal "a new low in Australia's deplorable and inhumane treatment of asylum seekers," and other Human Rights groups have stated concerns that Australia is ignoring international obligations.

Antonio Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, commented on the situation saying, "We are seeing record forced displacement globally, with 87 per cent of refugees now being hosted in developing countries. It's crucial that countries do not shift their refugee responsibilities elsewhere." The UNHCR supported his statement, saying that asylum seekers should be protected by the state in which they arrive in accordance with international law. 

At the moment, the deal between Australia and Cambodia seems more like a trading agreement. In this situation it is not cotton or oil being exchanged for money, but people.

Myths About Immigration

Myth #1: Immigrants don't pay taxes
Immigrants pay income, property, and sales taxes at both the state and federal levels. Immigrants pay 90-140 billion dollars in taxes annually. Lack of documentation does not make immigrants immune exempt from paying taxes, and undocumented immigrants pay tens of billions of dollars in income tax each year. Furthermore, undocumented immigrants cannot apply for federal benefits such as welfare, the SNAP program, or medicare. (http://www.aila.org/contentViewer.aspx?bc=17,142#section4)

Myth #2: Immigrants take jobs away from natural-born Americans
Immigrants create jobs for U.S. workers and foreign-born students fund U.S. graduate programs. Companies created by Chinese and Indian immigrants generated over 19.5 billion dollars and 73,000 jobs in 2000. Immigrants often take labor-intensive jobs that natural-born Americans don't want. 511% of employment growth in Massachusetts from 2000-2004 was because of new immigrants. (http://berkshireic.com/?page_id=8)

Myth #3: Immigrants bring crime and put Americans in increased danger
Immigrants are less likely to be charged with crimes. Every immigrant ethnic group has lower rates of imprisonment and crime than native-borns. Immigrants comprise 5% of all Armed Forces and 7% of Navy personnel, therefore increasing the security of Americans.  (http://berkshireic.com/?page_id=8)

Myth #4: Immigrants don't want to learn English
Over 75% of immigrants speak English well after ten years in the country. Adult English language classes are in high demand, and most immigrants must wait for months--for those in Massachusetts the wait can be up to two years--before they taken off of class waiting lists. 
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/education/27esl.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

Myth #5: Immigrants are different today than 100 years ago
The U.S. has a foreign-born population of 11.5% compared to 15% in the early 20th century. Just like 100 years ago, immigrants today first settle in single-ethnic communities, speak to each other and read newspapers in their native language, and create businesses to serve their communities. They also face the same suspicion, stereotyping, and discrimination as those who arrived in the early 1900s. (http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf)

Immigrants arriving in 1900...

…and in 2013

Image 1

Image 2

Immigration Policy: Canada vs the United States

How does immigration policy differ between the U.S. and Canada?

 Canada actively works to attract immigrants and has public support for ongoing immigration. Many Canadians are interested in ensuring that foreign credentials are recognized and put to use to avoid what they refer to as "brain waste." 11% of those elected to parliament in 2011 were not born in Canada with 20% of all Canadians being born abroad.

According to Jeffrey Reitz, a sociologist at the University of Toronto,  Canadian public opinion on immigration differs from their southern neighbor for two main reasons: economic benefits and interest in multiculturalism.

Canadians believe that the positive economic benefits of immigration outweigh the negative. Many struggling towns turn towards immigration to create jobs and stimulate their local economy. Unlike the U.S., immigrants are not usually blamed for "taking away our jobs" because Canadian immigrants work under a point system. This system authorizes them for specific jobs dependent on their credentials. In 2008 21.2 percent of Canada's labor force was made up of foreign-born residents, compared to 16.5 percent in the United States

Canadian attitudes towards multiculturalism are very different from U.S. attitudes. Canada was part of the British commonwealth and severed its last ties with the British Parliament as recently as 1982, although Queen Elizabeth remains as sovereign. When the time came for Canada to develop its own national identity apart from the Commonwealth, there great involvement from the Francophone and first people minorities. As a result, Canada has a commitment to bilingualism and multiculturalism. 

Unlike the United States, Canada doesn't have a significant concern with illegal immigration. The U.S. acts as a large barrier between Canada and those attempting to gain entry from central and south america. Also, Canada is about 136,390 square miles larger than the U.S., its population is about 9 times smaller. This thinner population density combined with a lower birth rate than the U.S. leaves Canada reliant on immigration for population growth.

While Canada has the entire continental U.S. as a buffer zone to those trying to immigrate from central and south america, the U.S. has only areas of shallow water or empty desert, and therefore Canada does not have to deal with illegal immigration to the extent that the U.S. must deal with it. This leaves the government (and the public) free to see immigrants as those they want to attract, rather than those 
who must dealt with or protected against. 

The U.S. does not accept or employ immigrants based on a point system. Canada's point system gives preference to immigrants with French and English proficiency, a higher-level of education, and job qualifications. Applicants under or over a certain age receive less points, and those without a certain level of wealth or health problems are ineligible for immigration. While this attracts many educated and skilled applicants, it excludes the majority of interested parties.

The United States prides itself on being a so-called "melting pot" of cultures, but proponents of looser immigration policies rarely advocate for immigration because it improves diversity and promotes multiculturalism. Interestingly, the U.S. has no official language, but is less welcoming of other languages in schools, government, etc. While obviously a diverse nation of immigrants (in comparison to other nations), the U.S. wants the country to remain "American."