Case study-Armenian genocide

Written by Yulia Pavlovska

Edited by Lote Līva leimane

*This is a fact checked piece*

   Just a few days ago, on the 24th of April, people around the world gathered for a solemn commemoration - the Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day. This presents an opportunity to shed light on its events and the issues surrounding it, as well as its continued relevance.

The Armenian Genocide was a campaign of mass murder and forced displacement conducted against the Armenians residing in the Ottoman Empire by the Young Turk government during World War 1. Previously, while the Armenians did not have their own state, they retained a strong sense of identity in the Ottoman Empire, as they could preserve their Armenian language and the Armenian version of orthodoxy. This was facilitated by the millet system present in the Ottoman Empire, which accorded significant independence to the non-Muslim minorities residing there. While life was far from peaceful or guaranteed for the Armenians during the 19th century (for instance, they were the subjects of mass violence several times), their situation deteriorated significantly when a new government, called the Young Turks, came to power. While a variety of factors played into the start of the genocide, with the backdrop of the First World War, the catalyst for the start of the massacre was the Ottoman defeat by Russians in a battle in 1915, for which the Armenians were made the scapegoat.

The Armenian troops that had been present there were the victims of organised murder by Ottoman soldiers, the first victims of the genocide. Civilian Armenians were then forcibly deported from their traditional places of living in Eastern Anatolia, and the people were marched to desert concentration camps in Syria. By the end of the First World War in 1918, most of the Armenians who had lived in the Ottoman Empire were gone.

The Armenian genocide presents an interesting case study of recognition and non-recognition of genocide, as this remains contentious to the present day. While many at the time recognised it as such, documenting it, it was never recognised by the Ottoman Empire. Nowadays, while the majority of scholars dealing with such issues have recognised it as a genocide, it continues to be denied. The recognition and non-recognition of the genocide is still a topic of controversy in our day, seeing as modern day Türkey, the descendant of the Ottoman Empire, and pro-Turkish organisations and governments (such as that of Azerbaijan) continue denying the occurrence, even if in the eyes of many, the historical record is clear.

What is more, the legacy of the Armenian genocide took on newfound importance in recent years. This is as, just last year, there was a new forced exodus of Armenians. This time, the fleeing was catalyzed by the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, a long contested region between Armenia and Azerbaijan. This is as it used to be an Armenian exclave in Azerbaijan, but is now fully in control of the latter, resulting in the forced migration of Armenians to Armenia who did not want to be under Azerbaijani rule.

A traumatic event, it has already been named an ethnic cleansing by certain scholars. What’s more, it is not just about the physical exodus of the population, but also about the destruction of its heritage, such as Armenian religious architecture.

Thus, it is vital to recognise that a genocide did occur. Because recognition of genocide ensures that it stays not just in the memory of those whom it impacted and their ancestors, but also of the international community and of international law. Only by remembering history can we minimize the risk of it repeating itself. And if we erase the memory of a people being victims of genocide, we erase their right to a crucial part of their history and their right to defend themselves against it repeating, as well as give legitimacy to those who continue to oppress. 

Moreover, through remembrance, we can draw the attention and shame of the international community, as well as multiply efforts to preserve a people’s heritage.

Understanding the Yazidi Genocide

Written by Gianna Furnari

Edited by Lote Līva leimane

*This is a fact checked piece*

    

   The Yazidi Genocide is a horrific chapter in recent history, marked by widespread violence and sexual slavery perpetrated against the Yazidi people, a small ethno-religious minority primarily located in Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. With a population estimated at around 400,000, the largest Yazidi community resides in northern Iraq.

Yazidism, the religious faith practiced by the Yazidis, incorporates elements of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism. Despite its syncretic nature, Yazidism has been misunderstood and misrepresented by outsiders. This misunderstanding was exploited by the Islamic State (ISIS) when it rose to power in 2014.

Driven by their extremist interpretation of Islam, ISIS militants targeted the Yazidis for their religious beliefs, branding them as "devil worshipers" and declaring their faith as "unholy." This ideological hatred translated into brutal violence against the Yazidi community, particularly when ISIS invaded northern Iraq in June 2014. Men were massacred, women and children were abducted, and entire villages were razed to the ground.

The plight of Yazidi women and girls under ISIS rule was especially horrific. Thousands were captured and subjected to sexual slavery, enduring unspeakable acts of violence and exploitation. This systematic campaign of sexual violence aimed to terrorize and demoralize the Yazidi community, leaving deep scars that continue to haunt survivors to this day.

In response to the Yazidi Genocide, the international community rallied to provide humanitarian aid and support to the displaced and traumatized Yazidi population. However, the road to recovery has been long and arduous, with many challenges still remaining. Yazidi survivors continue to grapple with the physical and psychological scars of their ordeal, while their communities struggle to rebuild in the wake of destruction.

Efforts to seek justice and accountability for the perpetrators of the Yazidi Genocide have been ongoing, with trials and investigations at international courts and tribunals. However, much work remains to be done to ensure that those responsible for these heinous crimes are held accountable and that justice is served for the victims.

The Yazidi Genocide serves as a stark reminder of the fragility of human rights and the enduring power of hatred and intolerance.

Understanding the Tutsi Genocide: A Tragic Chapter in Rwandan History

Written by Lote Līva leimane

Edited by Megan Scott

*This is a fact checked piece*

The Tutsi genocide, also known as the Rwandan genocide, stands as one of the darkest episodes in recent human history. This catastrophic event unfolded in the heart of Africa,  Rwanda, during a period of about 100 days in 1994. The genocide saw the systematic massacre of an estimated 800,000 Tutsi people, along with moderate Hutus who opposed the extremist ideology driving the violence. To comprehend this tragedy, it's crucial to delve into its historical context, key terms, and the events that transpired.

Rwanda, a small landlocked country in East Africa, has a very complex history filled with ethnic divisions and undeniable colonial influence. The population of Rwanda primarily consists of three ethnic groups- the Hutu, the Tutsi and Twa. The Tutsi, historically were considered the elite class. They held high political and economical power while the Hutu were predominantly farmers. However, these distinctions were not rigid, and intermarriage and social mobility was common.

As previously mentioned, colonialism, particularly the Belgian rule from 1916 to 1962, heightened the tensions by institutionalising ethnic identities and privileged the Tutsi minority. The Belgians also introduced identity cards that categorised individuals based on ethnicity, further expanding divisions within the already divided Rwandan society.

The spark that ignited the horrific events occurred on April 6, 1994, when a plane carrying a Hutu Rwandan president Juvénal Habyarimana, was shot down. Although the perpetrators still remain unidentified, Hutu extremists immediately used this as an excuse to initiate their genocidal campaign. Following the assassination, roadblocks were set up across the country and lists of Tutsi and Hutu individuals were given to militias. The Interahamwe along with parts off the Rwandan military and civilian authorities started hunting down and slaughtering Tutsis and moderate Hutus.

Radio RTLM played a key role in spreading propaganda about the Tutsis and even coordinating attacks. Messages of hatred and igniting violence were broadcasted daily urging Hutus to ''exterminate the cockroaches'', a derogatory term used to dehumanise the Tutsis as to excuse the attacks and killings of the Tutsis.

The international community, despite knowing the escalating violence, failed to intervene effectively. The Tutsi genocide is considered to be the biggest fail of the United Nations ever. The UN peacekeeping mission in Rwanda, UNAMIR was ill-equipped and under resourced to stop the bloodshed. Meanwhile, many Western nations were hesitating to label the atrocities as a genocide since then, under international law, they would have to intervene and that was not in their interests.

The Tutsi genocide stands as a haunting reminder of the consequences of ethnic hatred, political manipulation and failure of the international action. The systematic slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Rwanda and highlighted the catastrophic human cost of unchecked hatred against a group.

The genocide of Tutsis is used as a  ''never again'' example in the international community yet, we keep making the same mistakes. When will we learn?

The Rohingyan Genocide: A Story of Religious Persecution

Written by Anonymous

Edited by Lote Līva Leimane

*This is a fact checked piece*

The Rohingyan genocide, stemming from Myanmar's Rakhine State, is a grave human rights violation. The Rohingya Muslim minority has long endured discrimination and violence, worsened by their religious identity. Denied citizenship and labeled as "illegal immigrants," they face oppression due to their Muslim faith in a predominantly Buddhist country.

The Rohingya are an ethnic Muslim minority group primarily residing in Myanmar's Rakhine State. Despite having lived in the region for generations, they have been denied citizenship and basic rights by the Myanmar government, exacerbating their vulnerability to persecution. Rohingyan culture and language are distinct, with roots in the region dating back centuries. However, their identity has been marginalized and denied recognition by the state, contributing to their ongoing plight.

The crisis escalated in 2017 when Myanmar's military launched a brutal crackdown following attacks by Rohingya insurgents. This led to mass killings, rape, and the burning of Rohingya villages, termed "ethnic cleansing" by the United Nations. Despite global condemnation, Myanmar's government denies genocide allegations, leaving Rohingya displaced and vulnerable.

Religious persecution has played a central role, with discriminatory policies restricting Rohingya's practice of Islam. The international community has struggled to intervene decisively, hindered by geopolitical interests. Meanwhile, Rohingya continue to suffer in overcrowded refugee camps, deprived of basic rights and uncertain futures.

In commemorating the Rohingyan genocide, we must acknowledge the lives lost and reaffirm our commitment to justice. It's a reminder of the urgent need for collective action to end religious persecution and uphold human rights for all.

Lets talk about genocide

Written by Lote Līva Leimane

Edited by Patrīcija Marta Bērziņa

*This is a fact checked piece*

The word genocide holds a lot of power. Nowadays, people use it very openly and casually to describe a bad situation but we should be careful of how we use it in order not to normalise it to the point of not being shocked anymore when we hear that there is a genocide going on somewhere on the news. So what really is a genocide? What does it mean? What is classified as a genocide? Lets dive in.

The word genocide was first coined by Polish Lawyer Raphäel Lemkin in 1944 in his book ''Axis rule in occupied Europe''. The name consists of the Greek prefix genos, meaning race or tribe, and the Latin suffix cide, meaning killing. Lemkin developed the term largely in response to the Nazi systematic murder of Jewish people- Holocaust, but also as a response to previous instances in history of targeted actions aimed at the destruction of particular groups of people. A genocide is a deliberate and systematic extermination of a particular group of people based on their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or other defining characteristic. It involves the intentional killing, harming, or persecution of individuals belonging to a specific group with the aim of destroying that group in whole or in part.

Now, when we know where the word comes from and what it stands for, let's explore the deeper meaning and how the international law sees genocide.

Under international law, genocide is recognised as a crime. But what are the requirements under the international law to categorise killings as a genocide? The United Nations adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of genocide in 1948, which defines genocide as any of the following acts with intent to destroy a whole or a part of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life to bring destruction, imposing measures intended to prevent birth, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Genocide is considered to be one of the biggest violations of human rights and is condemned by the international community, and there are efforts to punish and prevent genocide from happening, yet it keeps happening all around the world and many of them we do not  know about.

We must stay informed and vigilant and speak out when we see injustice happening, so it does not get to become a genocide.

Barriers: Obstacles in African Countries that Prevent Girls from Receiving a Proper Education.

   As stated by UNESCO, there are 129 million girls in Africa and 50 million girls in sub-Saharan Africa face all kinds of struggles, including economic and cultural ones which impede them from receiving an education. Many social norms prevent girls from pursuing education in West and Central Africa, In the last two decades, the proportion of girls starting school has increased, but there is still a large gap in West and Central African countries, especially for adolescent girls and children living in the poorest areas, and girls with disabilities. Girls account for 52% of the 38.8 million children out of school in the region. Firstly, an especially crucial factor in cases that prevent education is early pregnancy; this is a combination of social, economic, and educational factors. In these cases, this included a limited sexual and reproductive education and gendered social norms around adolescence and sexual behavior, these factors are influenced by girls' own identity and the community in which they were raised in. 

This is often associated with child marriage and leads to girls who can have an education is dropping out. Early pregnancy is a crucial major reason girls drop out of school due to reasons like discriminatory laws and policies and social norms. Early pregnancy rates are higher in countries such as Chad, Mali, and Niger. 

In countries such as Mozambique and Sierra Leone (where policies have changed), there are still factors such as negative teachers, parents, and peers' attitudes that contribute to ostracizing pregnant young girls and mothers in education. Because there is so much stigma and fear. Even in some cases, criminalizing pregnancy out of wedlock makes parents make radical decisions for their children's education. For example, it is valued by parents to send their children to school when they reach a certain age, but when it comes to young mothers, parents take caution in sending these girls to school and prefer keeping them at home.

Child marriage is also to be considered in these situations; it is driven by gender inequality and
unequal power dynamics, child marriage is common in places where there are high cases of
gender-based violence, poverty, and socio-cultural norms. Child marriage is even more prevalent in girls living in rural areas. Child marriage is both a cause of girls being unable to attend school, often a consequence of girls' school dropout rates. Social norms put a lot of pressure on girls to drop out of school when they get married or fall pregnant instead of continuing their education. 

West and Central Africa have among the highest rates of child marriages in the world. However, rates are declining, but way too slowly. School-related gender-based violence is common all around the world. This can be defined as: threats or acts of sexual assault or physical or psychological violence around schools caused as a result of gender norms and stereotypes. This kind of violence can be perpetrated by teachers and students. Female students are the main victims of inappropriate sexual touching and non-consensual acts of sex. 

In sub-Saharan Africa, there are many cases in which girls report male teachers demanding sexual favours in return for good grades. Violence is also often directed to members of the LGBTQIA+ community. For students with disabilities, school curriculums are often not adapted to their needs, creating educational and achievement barriers. Schools also create certain hierarchies that reinforce norms and stigmas that disregard children with disabilities. Girls with disabilities also endure more gender-based violence compared to boys. Due to this, families may resist sending their children to school in fear of their safety. As well as education costs for girls with disabilities, are  higher than average. All GCI countries have stated they are committed to ending the exclusion of children with disabilities from education by signing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities However, significant gender gaps continue to exist between policies, commitments and implementations.

There are many economic disadvantages in Africa that prevent girls from getting an education.
especially when combined with gender norms regarding the role of women in society and beliefs.
about the value of girls' education. Parents may choose to prioritize  boys' education over girls.
Since gender norms show that boys are more likely to be able to leave and find jobs. Household Poverty and little access to quality education are high causes of child labor. Female teachers and leaders play a key role in creating a high-quality and safe educational system.

 In Mozambique, schools that have female teachers are seen to have a lower drop-out rates than schools with male teachers, yet still, in GCI countries, women remain underrepresented in schools. Early research and analysis show that schools with women in leadership roles do much better than male-led schools. Evidence shows that girls are more likely to go to school and Parents are more likely to send their daughters to school if a woman is in charge. As we can see from some of the obstacles stated above, girls all over the continent of Africa struggle every day with the fact that they cannot get a proper education. There are way more obstacles that could be discussed as well. These obstacles show us how much more progress we can make.

We all deserve an education; it is a fundamental right. It is important to note that more development is being made than in the past.However, not enough is being done to completely turn around these girls' lives. The act of encouraging girls to pursue education falls on our policy makers and leaders. It is up to us to continue to fight for the betterment of a young woman’s education. It is better to get all children the education they deserve to pursue their dreams.

Second shift: tales of unpaid labor

Written by Lote Līva Leimane

Edited by Megan Scott

*This is a fact checked piece*

Ever since the first human societies, gender has always played a role in one's status and societal pressure to be responsible for a specific thing and do a specific job. But when women entered the workforce, the family dynamics had to change because now both grown ups were out earning money, but did they change? 

From the 1930s until the 1950s married women started to enter the workforce in significant numbers that were never seen before. The number went from 10 percent to 25 percent. The high increase was the result of offices requiring clerical workers and new information technologies, as well as the growth in the number of women attending high school at the start of the 20th century. However, it is important to note that this participation was negatively affected by their husband's income, because, the higher his income, the less she would ''need'' to work and be outside of the home since he can provide.

Now they went to work, came home, and had to do all the jobs that they did in the house before as a plus to their actual job. This is what is now called second shift or unpaid Labour.

Women’s unpaid work supports economies and often fills in gaps of the lack of social services that should be provided to help bridge this gap. Yet, this is barely ever recognised as work. The unpaid care and household work that women do is valued to be 10 and 39 percent of the Gross Domestic Product and can add more to the economy than the manufacturing, commerce, or transportation sectors which should be a sign of a change.   

A new indicator developed by the ILO, (International Labor Organisation) the Jobs Gap, takes into account all the people without employment who are actively looking for jobs. It shows that the situation is worse than thought before for women in the world of work, the newly acquired data shows that women still have a lot harder time finding a job than men. This could be partially because the idea of unpaid labor that society expects from women is also what makes employers often think twice before hiring a woman because of the possibility that she might get pregnant and have to be on maternity leave or have to run away from her job once in a while. After all, her child is sick and so on, yet men are never questioned about such things and not even considered to be a problem if they have a family because society does not expect men to be the first to be called in case the child gets sick at school or problems like that. The design and functioning of institutions may be (intentionally or unintentionally) biased against women in ways that perpetuate existing inequalities.

The unequal distribution of unpaid care work at home between men and women represents an infringement of women’s rights and also break their economic empowerment that causes further damage on the economies and women's mental and physical health. 

Although, the statistics say that 65% of unpaid labor is still done by women, each family has their own way of doing things in the house. Of course, some men do help around the house and clean, cook and take care of their kids like they should because those are just normal skills every grownup should have. It is interesting to see men being praised for taking care of their kids on the internet when it is their kid, not only the woman's. But when women post the same, they will most likely be torn apart for minor mistakes she has made or maybe not even receive any attention. Seeing this really proves the point of how rare it is to see men doing their part of the household work.

Another way unpaid labor hurts women is the fact that women will most likely be able to supply fewer hours of market work than men could, putting them at the risk of being positioned into lower-quality therefore lower paying jobs or assigned less important tasks and creates a pay gap.

In my opinion, each woman who chooses to go out and fight the patriarchy and all the obstacles that are put in her way just because of her gender deserves recognition. Women who have families and work deserve recognition. They work all the time. They stay all day in an environment and society that does not favour them to succeed and then go home and work their second shift by taking care of their families and the house. Women who choose to focus on their careers, not building a family constantly fight the idea that all women are born to nurture and create life while they are trying to climb the career ladder. They deserve recognition. Women who have to work to support their families financially and work multiple low-income jobs deserve recognition. Each of these women deserve a pat on the back for not backing down in the face of hardships, keeping on with their dreams and not allowing society to place them in a specific box. They are the reason the number of women in education and the workforce will keep growing. Women help build and lift up economies. Power to the women!

Nikki Haley: A Presidential Contender Bringing Diverse Perspectives to the Forefront

Written by Gianna Furnari

Edited by Lote Līva Leimane

*This is a fact checked piece*

source: https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/2024-election/nikki-haley-political-views-2024/#:~:text=Spoke%20out%20against%20red%20flag,to%20more%20gun%20control%20legislation.

  With the upcoming USA presidential election drawing near, many around the world are anxious to see who will be the next president of the United States. Among them is Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, who is making waves in the Republican Party with her bid for the presidency. Nikki Hayley’s stark criticism of Donald Trump is marked by a unique blend of personal experiences and policy positions that reflect her conservative principles.

One of Haley's key stances is her opposition to abortion, which she attributes to her own challenges with infertility. Drawing from her personal journey, Haley advocates for policies that offer alternatives to abortion while prioritising the protection of unborn life.

On immigration, Haley strikes a balance between border security and compassion, opposing open borders while advocating for legal immigration. Her family history informs her stance, as she condemns prejudice against immigrants while emphasising the importance of upholding American values.

When it comes to healthcare, Haley's position diverges from some within her party, as she opposes the expansion of affordable healthcare. Her stance is rooted in a commitment to fiscal conservatism and a belief in the efficacy of free-market principles in driving innovation and efficiency in the healthcare sector.

Regarding taxes, Haley is a proponent of cutting corporate income taxes to stimulate economic growth and job creation. Her support for businesses reflects her belief in their role as drivers of prosperity in the American economy.

In addition to her policy positions, Nikki Haley's campaign also sheds light on gender inequality within the political sphere through her relentless determination to succeed with her campaign. Even if the popular nomination for the Republican Party is Donald Trump, Hayley continues to persevere through the presidential debates as well as enduring scrutiny from the media. As a woman vying for the presidency, Haley's candidacy challenges traditional norms and underscores the ongoing struggle for gender equality in leadership roles. 

Despite significant strides in recent years, women remain underrepresented in politics, particularly at the highest levels of government. Haley's presence in the presidential race serves as a reminder of the barriers that women continue to face in pursuing political careers and the importance of promoting diversity and inclusion in the political arena.

As Nikki Haley navigates the political landscape and seeks to secure the Republican nomination, her candidacy offers a diverse perspective on key issues facing the nation. With a blend of personal conviction and political acumen, Haley presents herself as a contender with the potential to influence the direction of the country in the upcoming election. As voters weigh their options, Haley's candidacy serves as a reminder of the importance of considering a range of viewpoints in the political process.

Religion and politics: how our beliefs impact the world around us

Written by Lote Līva Leimane

Edited by Megan Scott

*This is a fact-checked piece*

   The relationship between religion and politics has been very intricate and complicated since the very beginning and has been a hot debate topic because of its delicate nature. Some people believe that religion has no place in politics and that the two should be separated completely. Some believe that religion is the centre of everything, therefore we should base our political decisions on religious teachings. But is there middle ground? Can we find a way to respect everyone's opinions and needs and create policies that do not harm others beliefs?

First of all, it is very important to understand how the beliefs and spiritual practices of each individual  affect our decisions and how we run our governments and shape our societies. This impacts the rules, societal norms and every day decisions. For example, in many ancient civilisations, rulers claimed their authority over their citizens through divine right which means they believed that they are the chosen ones and appointed by the gods. A great example of this is Egypt. The pharaohs were considered as the embodiment of the god Horus during their reign, and their rule was legitimised through religious rituals and beliefs and people respected and feared them since they were not like one of them.

Religious institutions like the Catholic church used to hold significant influence in the mediaeval times over political affairs and leaders used this as a way to legitimise their rule. The Church played a crucial role in legitimising the feudal system and the divine right of kings. Laws and governance structures were frequently intertwined with religious beliefs and practices. Kings would have to try to be in the good graces of the church, otherwise they could be overthrown by someone else in their bloodline who is favoured by the church. The church was also a big patron of arts, architecture, and education during the Middle Ages. Monasteries and cathedrals were in the centre of learning and this church controlled intellectual discourse has shaped the worldview and values of European societies today.

The separation of politics and religion has been a gradual and complex process, there was not one single event that created the separation, it was many different events and movements that made that possible over years. Some of the key historic developments of the separation are- Enlightenment, Protestant Reformation and  Globalisation and Pluralism.

It is also very important to note that over time the dynamic of this relationship between politics and religion has changed according to the times. In some points, religion dictates the politics, but in some cases it can be the other way around. Politics forcing the church to back them. Putin and the Orthodox Church in Russia. Putin is not religious yet the Orthodox church supports him. Why? Great question. That's where political power stands over religious power. He is using his power to get the church to use their power to win people over.

Nowadays, most states are not governed by politics influenced by religion, however, there are some countries that do work like that.

Iran is a prime example of a state where politics are heavily influenced by religious beliefs. The country's political system is relying on the principles of Shia Islam with the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, who holds all of the authority. Islamic law, or Sharia, plays a central role in legislation and governance. The opposite of Iran, a country that has almost no religious involvement in their politics is Japan. In Japan there is a clear separation between religion and state and religious beliefs have very little direct impact on policy making. The country has a rich religious heritage including Shintoism and Buddhism, but they do not interfere with the country's politics.

When talking about the influence of religion in politics it is important to know the term religious fundamentalism. This refers to the phenomenon where political ideologies and agendas are strongly influenced by interpretations of religious scripts and religious beliefs. This integration of religion in politics  often leads to prioritisation of religious doctrine over human rights and democratic principles. This creates big problems since most countries have religious pluralism and having policies based on a specific religion will not work out.

Overall,  it is clear that religion will always try to find its way into politics and it might work in some places since many countries, for example middle eastern and African countries, consist of many different religions that have been trapped together by European drawn borders so fundamentalist approaches to politics will not end well and will create chaos. A great quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes "Your rights end where my rights begin'' is something that policy makers should keep in mind while trying to guide themselves through the jungle that is the search for a balance between their beliefs and politics. Not everyone has the same beliefs and the same idea of what the truth is.

Chicken or the Egg?

Written by Jerry Coleman

Edited by Gianna Furnari & Lote Līva Leimane

*this is an opinion piece

    Human existence is probably the biggest debate when discussing religion. People can argue about religion and what to believe in, but when the topic gets a little tense, I feel the next appropriate question to ask is, “Okay, how was the world created?” When that question is asked, you can tell the conversation is getting serious. 

When I think of some of the things I learned growing up and how science says things were created, I have to ask myself: How is that possible? How do they even come to that conclusion? 

We, as humans, evolved from monkeys, but there are still monkeys around, and no one has seen a monkey evolve into a human since. That doesn’t make sense to me. But that’s not how evolution works. Do I know science? I don’t. I just know what I was told in school. The Big Bang Theory isn’t something I am experienced in, but I will ask: how does something explode and create a perfect living planet for life, and somehow humans and animals land on this planet?  Other planets aren’t inhabitable, and some are possibly inhabitable unless they aren’t giving us all the information (which wouldn’t be a surprise). But for some reason, Earth is? Earth was made for monkeys to live on and grow into humans. This bang created animals, trees, water, and berries, but didn’t create humans. I just find it hard that a bang created this single, perfect planet. Do I need to do more research? Probably so. I don’t take anything away from these ideas. They just make me think. Evolution is probably my biggest battle because I do believe in evolution. I just can’t put together that the Big Bang created the universe and all the animals. If I could mix them, then I would say the Big Bang created the universe, God created the animals, and then we evolved from monkeys. I believe evolution started with monkeys who were smarter than other monkeys and decided to do better things, and the cycle continued until monkeys evolved into humans. That is an evolution that I could believe in. I mean, as humans, we grow and evolve in all things, from love to war.

The Bible tells us of a God who created the heavens and earth. Now, when we look at man and the cities that we live in and the buildings we occupy, he creates amazing things. So, is it hard to believe that someone who is all-mighty didn’t create the universe? To me, that isn’t hard to believe. I believe Adam and Eve were the first people he created. It was more like a test or experiment. He wanted to see how his creation would evolve and how they would listen. They started well, and then they failed. From there, God just went with it. He then created more humans in hopes they wouldn’t turn out like Adam and Eve, and they would listen and follow him. I mean, if we all came from Adam and Eve, then we are all family, but then the science of DNA and incest comes into play there. I was in many different churches growing up. I have seen miracles happen right in front of my eyes. I once witnessed a teenager who had one leg shorter than the other, and during church, they prayed for him, and his leg grew to be even with his other leg. I can’t say that it is science. I can only say that that is a higher power. 

I believe the Bible is a way to live. It is the events that happen in life and how to deal with them while still staying humble. I believe it is about turning the other cheek and letting Karma or God deal with them. How often have you said that’s what they get or deserve? The Bible is also a list of events and stories where people witnessed miracles happen that they couldn’t explain. Should I put what I witnessed in the Bible? The Book of Jerry perhaps.

Religion as a whole is very subjective. I respect all religions and what they believe. One thing I do know is that when someone is faced with a challenging situation or is backed into a corner and they see death coming their way, they all ask God for help. So, in the end, we all believe. Because no one is praying to science when death is calling.

Finding your light through spirituality

Written by Joao Paulo Assis (Samavarta Das)

Edited by Lote Līva Leimane

*this is an opinion piece*

    What is God ? Can we even define this "word", or can we agree on the definition?

I've been looking for God my whole life, I was born and raised in a christian Brazilian family, very engaged in church events and my religious life since i was a child, but then, early in my teenage years many questions appeared, and they did not seem to have a clear answer, or better saying they had the same answer "because it's God's will".

This way of thinking bothered me, so I started my inquiry to answer this fundamental question "What is God?". I've studied many religions, collected decent knowledge in the main ones. Very often I felt that I was close to answering my question, but that would never happen. It took me a lot of maturing and effort to find peace in my heart, I've dived deep into the spiritual/religious world, I've even lived in a monastery for 2 years as a monk, all of that just so I could find my internal peace.

The point of this article is not to answer this question for the reader, but to raise some more. First, if you do not believe in God, remember that God may not be what you were told by family or society, he is. So take a second to think and realise that maybe you believe in something else, a cosmic energy, a power behind actions, the universe, whatever you may want to call it.

The point is, there is more to life, then just our logic and reason, there are emotions and spiritual connections, think of the person you love the most for example, maybe your mother, your husband, a son, think of them, feel that love, imagine losing them, all of this pain, do you really believe it is just a chemical reaction in your brain ?

Well some people do not know love though, so let's give a different example, think of the most cruel and vile crimes you've heard of, spirituality exists for the good and for the bad, people forget that darkness is the absence of light, one cannot exist without the other, so, if you do not find your light, it is sure that the darkness will conquer you.

This does not mean you need to become a monk because otherwise you'll be a serial killer. What I mean is, you'll never fully experience life if you can't find your light, in religion, spirituality or anything else, you'll never fulfil your purpose, let alone find peace if the darkness, depression, anxiety is taking you over.

Be careful though, there are plenty of fake lamps attracting the weak flies.

The shock of culture shock

Written by Aaliyah André

  I thought myself immune to culture shock....

After all was I not well traveled? I was lucky enough to have a taste for the unknown injected intravenously by my father. Moving the family from the littoral of South America to off the Coast of Africa within five years. As my brother fussed at the mere idea of letting mom out of his sight, dad pressed a printed ticket to Paris in my hand. Telling 10 year old me to “Behave and everything will go well.” So I puffed my chest and travelled from this little island in the Indian ocean to the french capital, from Mamoudzou to Paris. I felt the cold air and the warmth of heavy pyjamas at night, the taste of my aunt’s food and the tickle of my cousin’s teasing on my side. Then I was back in the lukewarm air, in the southern hemisphere’s version of the cold season, austral winter. I barely even registered it.

No, culture shock felt like a myth to me.

When I frantically filled out questionnaires and did test after test to prove that I could in fact follow classes in english. Dad poured in again, a gift from a presence that had grown distant otherwise, pinned to one side of the globe when mom took us by the hand and flew us back to our home island, in the middle of the Caribbean. For us, there were no more unknowns, no more adventure. 

Yet I craved it still, so there came the two weeks in Cambridge, English teachers and classmates from all over Europe. Summer, school, summer school. I took pictures, made memories, saw London. And was back home in the blink of an eye. Summer on carefully trimmed Cambridge grass wasn’t much different to summer on soft Guadeloupean grass after all.

Adventure drew me further still. I clawed my way through the last months of high school and emerged with a choice: Go to Paris, ride the metro every day, watch your classmates smoke during the break and tuck hair behind their ear as they talk about their house in the alps, or having visited your island on a vacation. Study among them and attend class after class supposed to prepare you for yet another exam, for a selection of schools you barely know exist. Or go to Galway, get confronted to a new accent, a new dialect, a new group of people, a new approach to academia. All of it in subjects you care deeply about, both challenging and creative.

It’s pretty obvious isn’t it? I packed two rose pink suitcases and moved to Ireland.

The first few months were a breeze. The rush of discovery, film class in a dark theatre used by the drama society after hours, international students with easy smiles and huge hearts, watching my roommate hang a Celtic knot on our wall. The simple, heady fact that I was eighteen and for the first time truly free. I took notes religiously, made the sudden and sticky friendships that only happen during those first few weeks of effervescence and bought a bus ticket to Dublin whenever I could to discover the city. I was immediately comfortable, the mist of Hiberno english (also formerly sometimes called Anglo-Irish, is the set of English dialects native to the island of Ireland), Irish accent and Leaving Cert related slang dissipated through simply going to class alongside my roommates. Galway was inviting me in, and the best part was I didn’t really have to do it back.

You see as I poured my energy into understanding the world around me, the a shroud carefully laid across myself sat undisturbed. At first, I was overjoyed, I comforted myself in the unknown that I was now a part of to the people around. Explaining where exactly the French West Indies were or how exactly I got into the university was, dare I say, fun. It felt good, I felt interesting. But overtime, the explanations became shorter mirroring the disinterested look, perceived or otherwise, in my audience’s eyes. When finally they disappeared, I tucked the veil tighter around myself, and tried to concentrate on what I was here for..

I think this is where the shock started to set in.

It could always be worse. Those were the words on a loop in the back of my head as I faced my first winter alone, the ultimate motto against pessimistic doom. I kept my hands in my pockets and took the time to admire the fractals of ice bursting from blades of grass. I fashioned a snowman that could fit into the palm of my hand. I kept going to class, I stayed in during evenings. Maybe it was the lack of vitamin D, the fatigue, the course-load suddenly feeling gigantic or the shroud on my shoulders.

But I was sinking, and fast.

Downstream.

The only goal became getting to class, no matter what. I was persuaded that if I missed a day to rest, I would simply never set foot in the university again. The cold sinks to my core and the draping over my shoulders becomes heavy. My mum starts receiving letters from the school, asking for the year’s tuition to be paid but they’ve had to cross the Atlantic, and the date has already passed. My dad berates me for not getting the funding I promised I would get, my main argument for coming. EU citizens could apply, be treated on the same basis as Irish citizens. I’d applied, waited for an answer, and was met with silence. So I open my emails again in despiration.

The trail had gone cold.

For a moment I replayed a conversation between my comfort person and their roommate. “I think I’m going to travel through Europe, with my brother.” “That’s so cool. It’s funny how I can technically travel more freely than you now.” I didn’t think of it then, how much that foundation year inherent to her course and not mine, separated. Her Senegalese visa switched with a passport, the PPS number gently placed onto her lap. The peace. I clung to my own passport, that auburn document, clutched it even as I knew it would be expiring soon, even as I knew multiple government bodies had been ping ponging me back and forth for months for that number. It wasn't fair. Without it no scholarship or salary. I underestimated the energy it took, to email and email and email again. And explain, explain almost infinitely who I was what I was doing, and if I could please be allowed that little number, that recognition that I was in fact a part of this system we call a country. I had started months before I packed my suitcase, I had done everything right.

My head was barely above water.

Classes finished, somehow, work was due. The assignments clinging to the back of my brain like leeches. Realising I hadn’t left my room in days, I stepped out. The air was still cool somehow, and as I walked through streets of Galway, their familiarity grew on me like a scab. My legs were weak, I hadn’t eaten that morning, or the morning before. And as I found a bench and bought a bubble tea with a sweet taste, I thought about it all, a straw between my teeth. The shroud, the cold, the country, the people. A friend walked me home that evening, and by the time we parted at the door, I thought: I know how to swim.

Or at least to paddle.

Japan through the eyes of a Cuban American

Written by Faby Alvarez

  My parents fled from Cuba during the Castro regime, and feeling secure in my identity in the United States has always been difficult. Not quite Cuban enough to call myself a full “Cubana,” but not quite patriotic enough to call myself “American.” With no generational ties to the U.S. or wealth, being at a primarily white, rich private school in upstate New York challenged me to question what it means to be first-generation, multicultural, and ultimately, feeling like you don’t fit in anywhere.

Being an immigrant is hard. Living in a foreign country, especially if you don’t speak the language can be more isolating than people like to admit. A hundred questions flashed through my head when I moved my entire life across the Pacific to Japan: Am I doing the right thing? I’m not even fluent, why did I come here? Am I somehow betraying my Latina identity by moving so far away from everyone who speaks the same languages as me?

It was my final semester of college when I studied abroad at Doshisha University in Kyoto, and I did my class discussion project on first-generation Americans, Americans whose parents immigrated from other countries. I had the opportunity to interview some Japanese college students regarding identity. I asked them how they would feel if they were multicultural, if they felt disconnected from their parents’ culture when being home, how they would feel if they were ethnically Japanese but couldn’t speak the language. They answered that they have no opinion because they’ve never thought about it. They didn’t recognize the struggle of questioning who you are and feeling out of place, of having diverse friendships with people of different ethnicities. One told me they weren’t sure if diversity was even a good thing because they don’t know anyone from another country. Lucky them, I thought sarcastically at the time. I was envious of Japanese people and their sense of unity and certainty in their identity.

It’s hard to make friends who like me for who I am and not just because I can be free English practice. It is hard to try to join groups of friends where they all had cultural inside jokes and mannerisms that I couldn’t pick up on or find amusing. It became hard when I wanted to build deep friendships but my idea of “deep friendship” is different from a Japanese person’s.

Japan’s homogeneity is both a beautiful and scary thing. That’s the way I see it. Many traditional aspects of Japanese culture remain largely untouched, and Japanese people value collectivism and maintaining harmony, which I think contributes to the excellent safety and high quality of life. The other side is not that simple. The lack of immigration and general interest in politics makes Japan feel like a bubble. The racism isn’t as aggressive or discussed because almost everyone is Japanese. The expression in Japanese: “the nail that sticks out gets hammered down” is so rooted in their society that simply looking different can make you stand out in a negative way.

People don’t normally talk about the social and economic issues Japan faces, like its aging population, or lack of progression with women’s rights. However, I’m learning several lessons having lived here for a year and a half. The first lesson is acceptance: I’m a Cuban-American living in Japan, and I speak three languages. I’m not Japanese, but this place has become my home and I feel like I belong here too.

The second is not forcing connections: I have to surround myself with people who like me for who I am and see the good in making Japan a more inviting and safe place for immigrants.

Shades of Identity: Latin America

In the diverse and rich tapestry of Latin America and its broader Latino communities, the complexities of race and ethnicity are undeniable components of people's identities. This blend of cultures, histories, and backgrounds has created a multifaceted landscape of experiences for those of Latino heritage. In this intricate context, we embark on a journey to examine how white Latinos are treated in comparison to brown Latinos, both within Latin America and in more developed nations.

Understanding these dynamics is crucial. This exploration isn't merely an academic exercise; it's a vital examination of the real-life racial disparities within our community. This scrutiny is a necessary step in dispelling preconceived ideas and addressing deep-rooted inequalities. By shedding light on these disparities, we aim to encourage discussion, empathy, and substantial change.

In this article, I will try to bring to light the experiences of white and brown Latinos. It is an effort grounded in the belief that recognizing these disparities is the initial stride toward a more fair and inclusive future for all Latinos, irrespective of their skin colour.

The history of Latin America is deeply shaped by the enduring legacy of European colonization. European powers established colonies throughout the region, exploiting indigenous populations and extracting valuable resources like gold, silver, and sugar, leaving a significant impact on culture and society. The fusion of European, indigenous, and African cultures gave rise to unique art, music, and cuisine that defined the region. The Catholic Church, closely aligned with colonial powers, played a central role, in influencing religious beliefs and cultural norms. Within this context, colonial hierarchies were introduced, placing Europeans at the top and indigenous and enslaved Africans at the bottom, often rooted in notions of racial superiority. A racial caste system emerged, categorizing individuals by their racial backgrounds, and reinforcing beliefs about racial superiority and inferiority. The Catholic Church's influence added to this hierarchy, and colourism emerged, leading to discrimination based on skin tone within the same group, with lighter skin associated with privilege and darker skin facing marginalization. These historical aspects have had lasting effects on social structures, cultural beliefs, and racial inequality in the region.

In Latin America, the treatment of white and brown Latinos is influenced by a complex interplay of historical, social, and cultural factors. The historical legacy of European colonization has contributed to persistent disparities in treatment, with lighter-skinned individuals often enjoying privileges and higher social status, while darker-skinned individuals face discrimination and limited opportunities. These disparities are further exacerbated by colourism, a form of discrimination within the same racial or ethnic group based on skin tone. However, there is a growing awareness and movement to address these issues, promote inclusivity, and work toward more equitable treatment for all Latinos, regardless of their racial or ethnic background.

The experiences of white and brown Latinos who have migrated to first-world countries are diverse and influenced by a range of factors, including their racial and ethnic backgrounds, socioeconomic status, and the specific country they have migrated to.

It's essential to emphasize that these disparities are rooted in systemic and structural issues, and they may vary based on the specific country, region, and local context. Addressing these disparities requires a multifaceted approach that includes legislative changes, antidiscrimination measures, and broader societal awareness of the impact of skin colour on treatment and opportunities. Understanding these differences in treatment based on skin colour is the first step toward addressing racial disparities and promoting a more inclusive and equitable society for all Latinos, regardless of their skin colour.

Exploring the concept of intersectionality within the Latino community reveals the intricate ways in which various aspects of identity intersect and shape individuals' experiences. Intersectionality recognizes that people experience multiple layers of discrimination or privilege based on factors such as race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, and more. When applied to the Latino community, it unveils unique challenges and experiences for individuals who identify with both white and brown groups.

Intersectionality acknowledges that individuals' experiences are shaped by a complex interplay of factors. In the Latino community, people can have multiple identities and affiliations, such as being Latino, white, brown, indigenous, LGBTQ+, or a combination of these.

Individuals who identify with both white and brown backgrounds often grapple with questions of self-identity, striving to reconcile different facets of who they are. The ambiguity surrounding their racial or ethnic background can lead to a sense of being "in-between" or misunderstood, exacerbated by others' struggles to categorize them. These individuals navigating the intersection of white and brown identities may confront unique stereotypes deemed "not Latino enough" or "too assimilated" within the Latino community while concurrently facing stereotypes associated with their white heritage. Balancing the influences of multiple cultures can be a complex challenge, involving the navigation of differing norms, traditions, and expectations from both their Latino and white backgrounds, sometimes in contradiction. Consequently, those at this intersection can encounter racial bias and discrimination from both sides, contending with racial profiling in broader society and internal challenges within their own community.

Finding a sense of belonging within the Latino community and identifying with its struggles while still recognizing the privileges associated with their white identity can be complex. Individuals often seek support from others with similar experiences.

Common stereotypes and biases associated with white and brown Latinos can significantly impact their daily lives. Here are some examples: White Latinos may be stereotyped as more assimilated or "not Latino enough" due to their lighter skin, which can lead to a loss of cultural identity. Meanwhile, brown Latinos may face stereotypes linking them to lower socioeconomic backgrounds, manual labour, or limited educational opportunities.

In the realm of employment, there exists a pronounced disparity; white Latinos often enjoy advantages in terms of job opportunities and wages, while their brown counterparts frequently encounter discrimination in the workplace. This discrepancy extends into the realm of criminal justice, where brown Latinos may find themselves subjected to racial profiling and harsher sentencing, compounding the challenges they face. Furthermore, healthcare disparities affect brown Latinos as they contend with reduced access to and quality of healthcare, significantly impacting their overall well-being. In the realm of education, disparities persist, with brown Latinos having limited access to quality education, hampering their prospects for advancement and perpetuating the cycle of inequality.

These stereotypes and biases affect daily life by influencing perceptions, opportunities, and interactions. They can contribute to disparities in employment, education, healthcare, and the criminal justice system, creating challenges for both white and brown Latinos. Recognizing and addressing these biases is crucial for promoting equality and inclusivity.

Analyzing how media, culture, and historical narratives perpetuate stereotypes is essential for understanding how these narratives influence our perceptions and behaviours. In the context of white and brown Latinos, these stereotypes can significantly impact the way individuals are treated and the opportunities available to them. Here's an analysis of how these factors contribute to the perpetuation of stereotypes: the media plays a significant role in perpetuating stereotypes about Latinos. It often portrays brown Latinos in roles as criminals or domestic workers, while white Latinos may not even be recognized as Latinos, resulting in their underrepresentation. These media portrayals are based on appearances, reinforcing these stereotypes. Language stereotypes persist as well, with brown Latinos being depicted with strong accents, while white Latinos are not associated with any language, erasing part of their identity. These portrayals fail to accurately represent the diversity within the Latino community, emphasizing the urgent need for more inclusive depictions.

Within the realm of culture, cultural appropriation can also perpetuate stereotypes. White Latinos may be considered more "authentic" or "acceptable" in their cultural expressions, while brown Latinos are sometimes criticized for the same expressions. Colourism, a form of discrimination or bias based on the shade of one's skin within the same racial or ethnic group, can be perpetuated by cultural norms and values, where lighter skin tones are sometimes deemed more desirable, contributing to internalized biases.

Historical narratives rooted in colonization and European influence further reinforce these stereotypes. These narratives often place white Latinos in a more privileged position while portraying marginalized groups, particularly indigenous and Afro-Latino populations, as inferior. These narratives contribute to ongoing disparities and stereotypes. Additionally, historical narratives, especially those centered on the Catholic Church's role in colonization, can perpetuate stereotypes by depicting European culture and Christianity as superior, affecting perceptions of white and brown Latinos. The historical context of migration also plays a role, where brown Latinos are often seen as "migrants," while white Latinos are occasionally excluded from this narrative, despite their own migration experiences.

In this comprehensive examination of the treatment of white and brown Latinos, both in Latin America and first-world countries, we've unveiled a complex tapestry of experiences, challenges, and historical influences. This investigation has unearthed key insights: The historical context of colonization in Latin America, marked by European influence and the establishment of colonies, continues to profoundly shape how white and brown Latinos are treated, influencing perceptions of race and skin colour and perpetuating enduring disparities and biases. In Latin America, the treatment of white and brown Latinos varies, driven by historical hierarchies and cultural influences. 

Colourism, a form of discrimination based on skin tone, persists, affecting opportunities and experiences. In first-world countries, immigration and diaspora introduce variations in treatment influenced by skin colour, impacting aspects of life like employment, housing, criminal justice, healthcare, and more. Within the Latino community, individuals who identify with both white and brown backgrounds face unique challenges related to identity, racial ambiguity, cultural straddling, and vulnerability to bias, making acknowledgement of these experiences crucial for promoting inclusivity and equity. Stereotypes and biases concerning white and brown Latinos persist in areas like employment, education, and healthcare, emphasizing the need to address these biases for the sake of fostering equality and inclusivity, regardless of skin colour. Media, culture, and historical narratives significantly contribute to perpetuating stereotypes, influencing how individuals are treated, and limiting their opportunities. 

Addressing these issues involves promoting accurate and diverse representations in media, cultural education, and challenging outdated historical narratives. In conclusion, this exploration highlights the complexities of race and ethnicity within the Latino community, emphasizing the necessity of acknowledging and addressing racial disparities, promoting inclusivity, and striving for fairness and unity. Understanding these disparities represents the first vital step towards building a more equitable and inclusive future for all Latinos, regardless of their skin colour. 

Recognizing the diversity within the Latino community and working towards fairness and unity stand as essential elements in creating a brighter and more equitable tomorrow.

Road to citizenship in a time of crisis

Written by Gianna Furnari

Edited by Lote Līva Leimane

*This is a fact-checked piece*

Out of the more than 26 million refugees in the world, “less than one percent are considered for resettlement worldwide." In recent years, American public opinion has shifted its views on refugees; since then, the rise of racism and xenophobia has become apparent within the country. The Biden administration seeks to give refugees a path of security.

The program is extremely new compared to previous presidents' responses to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the world. The creation of this initiative was announced in President Biden's Report to Congress on Proposed Refugee Admissions for the Fiscal Year of 2022, which was released on September 20, 2021. This new program allows refugees to be privately sponsored by groups of Americans to support their resettlement in the United States. This private sponsorship model will allow individuals, community associations, private enterprises, ethnic organizations, churches, and nonprofits to be able to provide financial support, post-arrival services, and benefits for one year. It is important to note that in private sponsorship, the sponsor assumes all financial responsibility for the refugee. This allows for "no further stressors on public funds, services, or programs.” Not only will this program make sure that refugees will be able to live in safe and humane conditions, but it will also provide ways for refugees to get involved in the communities that they reside in. In addition, refugees will have access to housing, opportunities to build skills, and employment opportunities. In the past years, it could be seen that without the implementation of private sponsorship, refugees were rather restricted in terms of community involvement, employment opportunities, and pathways to citizenship.

Historically, the United States has resettled more refugees than any other country. When looking at the migration path of refugees, it can be seen that after fleeing their country, most go home when it’s safe, some stay in temporary refugee settlements, and a tiny fraction resettle in a third country. In the United States, the president, along with Congress, determines the number of refugees authorized to enter the country through a presidential determination. In September 2022, President Biden announced his administration’s goal of resettling up to 125,000 refugees in the upcoming year, which, in comparison to other presidents, is an ambitious goal. According to current data, only 31,800 refugees in 2023 have been resettled in the United States so far. This new program is an effort by the Biden Administration to try and add more stable infrastructure to make up for what was underfunded under the Trump Administration.

When looking at the history of resettlement in the United States, the country has had a historical reputation for being a haven for those fleeing persecution and conflict. President Trump built a presidency by feeding ordinary people's fear and distrust of refugees and immigrants. During Donald Trump’s administration, he cut more than “80% of refugees allowed in annually." The former president also imposed numerous sanctions and banned admitting countries that were listed as a “threat to US national security." An example of this is a week after President Trump signed Executive Order 1376, better known as the Muslim Ban, which banned travel and suspended resettlement for 120 days from seven predominantly Muslim countries such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. When reading Executive Order 1376, its main goal was to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States. Due to these sanctions, during Donald Trump’s last year in office, only 11,840 refugees were resettled, which is a 60% decrease from 2019, when 29,916 refugees were approved for resettlement.

The attitude of the American people toward the resettlement of refugees is less than welcoming. The cost of living has gone up under the current presidential administration; post-coronavirus, the prices of gas, rent, and food have gone up exponentially. The high cost of living exists not only in the United States but throughout Europe, Asia, and Africa. The rise in living costs has had a negative effect on the way many Americans view extending their help to refugees. When looking at exactly how many Americans feel about refugee resettlement, it is recorded by the Pew Research Center that "72 percent say taking in civilian refugees from countries where people are trying to escape violence and war should be a very or somewhat important goal for immigration policy in the United States.” It also states that only “28 percent say that it is super important.”. The obvious question is: how will President Biden fix the cost of living for Americans while being able to provide resources that will ensure refugees have a successful change in the American dream?

Expanding the refugee program in the United States can provide a way for refugees to gain a path to citizenship. It is also a way for many refugees to have security within the country as well as a way to ensure that they have the right to build a successful life in America.

Immigration in Cyprus

Written by Andria Antoniou

Edited by Gianna Furnari and Lote Līva Leimane

*This is an opinion piece *

  For decades, immigration has always been a huge topic in politics, schools, social gatherings, protests, and everyday life conversations. In Europe, immigration is one of the biggest social issues that causes the most friction within our society. Immigration started at least 20,000 years ago, and it is still a huge problem worldwide. Immigrants always face disparaging treatment, especially in the workplace. Every time an immigrant wants to apply for a job, the discrimination in the workplace is awful; colleagues might make fun of them for how they look, where they come from, or even their accent. The boss sees the bullying and does nothing; instead of helping, he just joins his employees. This is just the simplest form of discrimination to exist, and it is horrible how normalised it has become.

Abuse and harassment often trouble immigrants because they face it almost every day. Parents and their children have to move all the time because they may get attacked by locals or removed with force by the police; emotional abuse is as bad as physical abuse; they are being treated in the worst way possible; and in everything that happens between the government and the locals, they always blame the immigrants for ‘’stealing’’ their money and never feel safe when they walk past or around them.

Poverty is another problem that they face in their new home country; they leave their countries with a huge risk of endangering themselves and hoping they are not caught trying to enter the sea borders of another country. The danger they face in the sea is terrifying; only a small number of them make it to land because they all try to survive no matter what and often fight for a spot on the very small boats they travel with, resulting in many of them, especially children, drowning in the open sea.

Raising their children is a big challenge for them, given their circumstances and the very low wages they get from the government. Some of these children are forced to work from a very young age just to bring more money to the family. Children under the age of twelve are obligated to work because their parents are not making enough money for a full month of groceries and special needs. Imagine if you were in their shoes, having to work full-time jobs six days a week and maybe even seven to provide for your family. If that was not enough, imagine the discrimination they go through by the older people they work with, who are always looked down upon and never taken seriously. Younger refugees often are subjected to this type of mistreatment and sexual harassment. Most importantly young women who work with men. It is awful how often the news will mention young girls being raped by the people they work for,  still, nobody does anything to prevent this disgusting action from happening. For example in Cyprus when young girls report this to their local police, the Cypriot police will either ignore them or make fun of them. It is absurd how normalized sexual abuse is against female refugees. Immigrant men are often harassing many young Cypriot women, leaving them with no choice but to resent them and to generalise that all immigrant men have bad intent towards them.

When immigrants harass the local Cypriots in any sort of way, the locals have more reasons to resent them than before for making them feel unsafe in their communities. I often see many immigrants waiting in lines with their children to get a permit to live in Cyprus and to pay their taxes. However, because there is a language barrier between immigrants and locals it can often cause misunderstandings.

People often see immigrants as the enemy; they view them as threats and competition leading to riots against them and brutal fights between them, which have no moral cause and lead to nothing most of the time. Racists want to prove something that does not exist just so they can send the immigrants back to their countries. That is why they start meaningless protests and cause trouble for no reason. Immigrants are constantly being labelled criminals; this separates them and gives them a lower status than white people in a society where they have less political power. They cannot vote, which is a sad fact, and they eventually understand that no one owes them anything and they have to work hard to earn everything. They come up with creative solutions to problems when the odds are stacked against them.