CPR Winter 2019 (XVIII, 4)

COLUMBIA
POLITICAL
REVIEW
WINTER 2019
Volume XVIII, No. 4
ALSO INSIDE:
Learning from Lebanon
pg. 16
A Mixed-Status Family is an
American Family
pg. 18
A REVOLUTION IN
CUBAN MUSIC?
pg. 7
1

MASTHEAD & EDITOR’S NOTE
Editor-in-Chief
Publisher
Managing Editors
Senior Editors
Copy Editors
Cover Art/Graphics
Isabelle Harris
Celine Bacha
Benjamin Sachs
Alex Siegal
Hannah Wyatt
Rachel Barkin
Jasleen Chaggar
Ramsay Eyre
Henry Feldman
Aja Johnson
Jodi Lessner
Helen Sayegh
Zachary Becker
John David Cobb
Ellie Gaughan
Shomik Ghose
Aryeh Hajibay-Piranesi
Annabel Kelly
Grace Protasiewicz
Emily Ringel
Jake Tibbetts
Eleanor Katharine Yeo
Mwandeyi Kamwendo
Op-Ed
Staff Writers
Feature
Staff Writers
Olivia Choi
Sarah DeSouza
Sophia Houdaigui
Kathrine Malus
Jungwoo Park
Pallavi Sreedhar
Raya Tarawneh
Ariadne Xenopoulos
Cameron Adkins
Maria Castillo
Stella Cavedon
Devyani Goel
Kris Jenvaiyavasjamai
Heather Loepere
Diana Valcarcel
Charlie Wallace
Ayse Yucesan
Dear Reader,
This is my last issue as Editor-in-Chief of the Columbia
Political Review. Helping to build this magazine
has been one of the greatest pleasures of
my undergraduate career. The writers, editors, and
senior staff of this publication serve as a constant
reminder that the challenges our generation faces
will be met by exceptionally talented and passionate
people. I thank each and every one of them for
making my time at CPR so transformative.
I spent most of my time in college studying the
American Civil War and Reconstruction. Having one
foot in the politics of the past and the other in the
politics of the present has given me hope that what
seems to be politically impossible can become possible
far more quickly than we would imagine. As
we navigate impeachment, climate change, an impending
refugee crisis, and mass protests abroad, I
encourage you to keep this in mind.
In this issue, we sample some of these changes.
Jungwoo Park and Pallavi Sreedhar both tackle
the question of free speech online—Park scrutinizes
Facebook’s policies, while Sreedhar analyzes a policy
shift at Twitter. Our cover article by Diana Valcárcel
Soler examines the fragile and shifting relationship
between Cuba and its musicians, and recent
changes under President Díaz-Canel. Maria Castillo
challenges nativists’ monolithic rhetorical image of
the “American Family” with the counterexample of
modern, equally American mixed-status families.
Though I will no longer be at the helm of this
magazine, I can say with confidence that, as the
world continues to change, CPR will be here to cover
it. I can’t wait to see what they do.
– Belle Harris, Editor-in-Chief
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this magazine belong to the
authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Columbia Political Review,
of CIRCA, or of Columbia University.

COLUMBIA
POLITICAL
REVIEW
Published by CIRCA
Winter 2019
Volume XVIII, No. 4
3: Facebook Fundamentally
Misunderstands Free Speech
by Jungwoo Park
5: Can We Support Free Speech
and Curb Misinformation at the
Same Time?
13: The Failures of Refugee
Camps in Europe
by Stella Cavedon
16: Learning from Lebanon
by Raya Tarawneh
by Pallavi Sreedhar
7: Will Cuba Tear Down the Wall
Around its Musicians?
by Diana Valcárcel Soler
11: Why Did Prime Minister Abiy
Ahmed of Ethiopia Win the Nobel
Peace Prize?
By Charlie Wallace
18: A Mixed-Status Family is an
American Family
by Maria Castillo
22: Examining the Recent Wave of
Student Disenfranchisement
By Olivia Choi

03// 04 WINTER // FALL 2019 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW FREE SPEECH; FAKE FEATURE NEWS
FACEBOOK FUNDAMENTALLY
MISUNDERSTANDS FREEDOM
OF SPEECH
Jungwoo Park
Last Thursday, Facebook
CEO Mark Zuckerberg delivered
a speech at Georgetown University
adamantly declaring that his
company is a protector of free
speech and democracy. He emphasized
Facebook’s commitment
towards “giving everyone a voice”
and insisted that social networks
should not censor news coverage
and politicians’ posts. This speech
was Zuckerberg’s
latest defense of
Facebook’s contentious
community
standard policies
that have been
widely criticized
for categorizing
false information as
protected free speech. Facebook’s
refusal to remove disinformation
off of its platform is nothing but
a phony, neutral posture of defending
First Amendment rights,
reflecting a fundamental misconception
of freedom of speech.
Facebook’s platform has been
used as a controversial force in
global politics for the last decade.
During the 2016 United States
presidential election, Russian intelligence
officers used Facebook,
and its photo-sharing application
Instagram, to propagate a disinformation
campaign that manipulated
and divided the American
electorate. Last year, members of
the Myanmar military launched a
propaganda campaign over Facebook
to incite the ethnic cleansing
of the country’s Muslim Rohingya
minority group. Leading up to
the 2020 presidential election, the
American public is already beginning
to witness the powerful influence
Facebook holds over political
coverage. After Facebook officially
“Freedom of speech—the inalienable right of an
individual to express their opinion without retaliation—is
inherently biased because some forms of
speech will intevitably silence others.”
declared that politicians’ speech is
exempt from their fact-checking
and decency standards, Donald
Trump’s reelection campaign posted
a video ad falsely accusing Joe
Biden of having used his power as
vice president to threaten Ukraine
into halting their investigation of
his son Hunter Biden. Facebook denied
the Biden campaign’s request
to take down the misleading video
and responded that the decision
was “grounded in Facebook’s fundamental
belief in free expression,
respect for the democratic process.”
What is frustrating, however,
is that Facebook has been quietly
taking down political ads this entire
time. Buzzfeed News investigated
the platform’s ad library and
discovered that in the first half of
October, Facebook censored more
than 160 ads posted by the presidential
candidates Bernie Sanders,
Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Tom
Steyer, and Donald Trump for a variety
of reasons— from profanity
to broken links. Facebook reveals
its priorities by
cracking down
on broken links
but sits idly by
while millions of
Americans consume
false political
information.
Zuckerberg also
refuses to acknowledge that an
open platform does not necessarily
provide a user with equal access to
different opinions. An individual’s
Facebook feed is not a chronological
timeline of content but rather
a highly specific group of posts curated
by an algorithm designed to
maximize the user’s engagement.
These algorithms tend to create
“echo chambers” of information
by only showing posts from users’
like-minded friends and media
sources aligned with their political

FEATURE FREE SPEECH; FAKE NEWS
COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW REVIEW // WINTER // FALL 2019 // 05 04
preference. Around 45 percent of
American adults use Facebook as
their primary news source, granting
the company a staggering
amount of power over the political
content consumed in this country.
Facebook’s vast influence
comes with an equally large
amount of responsibility to ensure
politicians do not openly lie to the
public. Zuckerberg has argued that
“people should be able to see for
themselves what politicians are
saying,” but there is a clear difference
between politicians sharing
their opinions and Facebook accepting
money from political campaigns
to promote ads that intentionally
mislead and polarize voters.
This problem stems from
Facebook’s failure to grasp the
fundamental concept of free
speech. Freedom of speech—the
inalienable right of an individual
to express their opinion without
retaliation—is inherently biased
because some forms of speech will
inevitably silence others. Zuckerberg
does acknowledge that individuals
“shouldn’t be able to say
things that put people in danger,”
however, he does not commit to
creating a level playing field where
one person’s opinion cannot dominate.
If Facebook allows discriminatory
speech, minority groups
are overpowered, and conversely,
if the company condemns hate
speech, racist people cannot freely
express their opinions. Therefore,
it is impossible to protect all
voices equally; Facebook must
decide which forms of speech to
allow on its platform. Zuckerberg
cannot take a hands-off approach
to regulating disinformation and
discriminatory content when it
encourages hatred and violence.
As Facebook becomes more intertwined
with the current political
climate, Zuckerberg is in an admittedly
unenviable position of having
to set the standard for online public
discourse. Last Monday, the company
disclosed that it had removed
four foreign interference operations
from Iran and Russia, including one
that specifically targeted the 2020
presidential election. Facebook
also announced last month its plan
to establish the Oversight Board,
an independent, global panel of
judges who will hear appeals from
users and review Facebook’s policy
decisions. It is worth questioning
whether judges paid by Facebook
can be unbiased in their evaluations
of company policies, but
these latest efforts seem like a step
in the right direction. Nevertheless,
Facebook must reevaluate its philosophical
approach to ensuring freedom
of speech and consider how a
neutral stance can create a harmful
environment for its users. ☐

05 // WINTER 2019 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW FREE SPEECH; FAKE FEATURE NEWS
CAN WE SUPPORT FREE
SPEECH AND CURB
MISINFORMATION AT THE
SAME TIME?
Pallavi Sreedhar
The CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey,
announced on October 30
that Twitter would be banning
all political advertising, including
both candidate endorsements
and messaging about political
issues. Dorsey stated that the
company will share its final policy
by November 15 and will start
enforcing the policy starting November
22. Dorsey explained
through Twitter, “Internet political
ads present entirely new challenges
to civic discourse: machine
learning-based optimization of
messaging and micro-targeting,
unchecked misleading information,
and deep fakes.” Dorsey felt
the need to entirely ban political
advertisements instead of simply
eliminating misinformation because
he feels that the company
“needs to focus [its] efforts on the
root problems, without the additional
burden and complexity
taking money brings.”
Twitter’s recent ban has been
highly controversial. While some
argue that the policy is an attack
on free speech that should be
repudiated, others suggest that
Facebook should follow Twitter’s
lead in attempting to stamp out
misinformation. Interestingly,
the debate doesn’t break down
neatly along partisan lines. While
Democrats such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
and Elizabeth Warren
have attacked Facebook for continuing
to run false political ads,
there are aspects of a ban on political
ads that would harm Democratic
causes as well.
Indeed, The Intercept, a
left-leaning media company,
published an article arguing that
a Facebook ban on political ads
would be a major blow to the left,
citing Ocasio-Cortez’s social media-based
campaign as evidence.
The article points out that Ocasio-Cortez’s
rise to office was fueled
by a combination of on-theground
organizing and targeted
political ads on Facebook. Opponents
of a ban on political ads purport
that the ban would hinder
grassroots political movements
such as Ocasio-Cortez’s, favoring
incumbent candidates whose office
provides them ample opportunity
for promotion.
According to The Intercept,
the organization that backed Ocasio-Cortez’s
campaign recruited
volunteers, identified donors,
built an email list, and created a
support base all through targeted
Facebook ads. Dorsey’s response
to the use of Twitter for similar
grassroots political movements
echoed his statement in the
Tweets announcing the ban: “We
believe political message reach
should be earned, not bought.”
However, this philosophy gives
incumbent candidates a nearly
insurmountable advantage, since
they already have a wide-reaching
political platform.
In addition to acting as a tool
for insurgent candidates like Ocasio-Cortez,
targeted advertisements
also support progressive
causes such as climate change
and Planned Parenthood. Twitter’s
ban on political advertisements
will include issue advertisements
in addition to campaign advertisements.
For example, Twitter will
ban advertisements on climate
change—but the resulting catch
is that they will still be allowing

FREE SPEECH; FAKE NEWS
COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // WINTER 2019 // 06
big oil companies to, say, advertise
their products. Could there be
a better way to address the issue
of misinformation in political ads?
A compelling argument by
the chair of the Federal Election
Commission, Ellen Weintraub, provides
a middle-ground solution:
banning microtargeting of political
ads rather than banning political
ads writ-large. In a Washington
Post op-ed, Weintraub argues that
microtargeting, which is the “limiting
of the scope of an ad’s distribution
to precise people,” contributes
to misinformation because
of the limited accountability that
results from targeted advertisements.
In the 2016 election, microtargeting
was used by both
foreign and domestic actors to
spread misinformation and help
Trump get elected. Weintraub argues
that the “counterspeech doctrine,”
which posits that the proper
response to negative speech
is positive expression, is limited
through microtargeting. In this
case, the counterspeech doctrine
means that misinformation would
be countered by factual evidence,
but this can only be done if the
false political ads are visible to the
general public and not a targeted
few. Eliminating microtargeting’s
use in political advertising, therefore,
would enhance accountability
and flush out disinformation.
In her article, Weintraub
provides Internet advertisers
with the rule
of thumb that they
could only target
groups “no more
than one political
level below the
election”. For example,
the most specific
groups that ads for a city council
election could target are council
districts.
What makes Weintraub’s case
so compelling is that it implicitly
acknowledges both the benefits
and costs of political advertisements.
Weintraub’s rule of thumb
does not ban targeting entirely,
but does partly regulate it. Thus,
insurgent candidates such as Ocasio-Cortez
would still be able to
use social media as a means of
gaining a voter base. Weintraub’s
argument similarly does not
suggest banning political
issue advertisements
but
does suggest
that
they be
disseminated
to
an audience
large
enough
for people
to engage
in discussion
and
debate.
Although
a ban on microtargeting
would
not stop
misinformation
entirely, it would
greatly reduce it without losing the
benefits of broader political targeting.
Weintraub’s plan is therefore a
savvy alternative to the extremes
put forward by Facebook and Twitter,
with the former refusing to
police political advertisements at
all and the latter banning political
advertisements entirely. Spreading
misinformation through microtargeting
does not constitute
free speech if the speech is not
put forth to the general public to
be debated and discussed.
Microtargeting allows
for false political ads
to be distributed
only to people
who might be
receptive to the
message, disallowing
any potential
oppositional
responses.
Microtargeting
only reinforces
online echo chambers,
which ultimately
harm our
democracy by stymying
discourse.
In order to combat
misinformation in political
advertisements
without negating the
benefits of targeted
political advertisements,
we should
follow Ellen Weintraub’s
advice and
ban microtargeting
in political
campaigns
as an effective
middle
ground.
☐

07 // WINTER 2019 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW FEATURE
WILL CUBA TEAR DOWN THE
WALL AROUND ITS MUSICIANS?
Diana Valcárcel Soler
My grandma, Yaya, used to tell
me stories of her brothers screwing
wires into the ground to hear American
music, hidden from the secret
police, in a scene that could very
well be out of a dystopian young
adult novel. Long hair, cowboy
boots, listening to jazz—all could
be crimes against the state in the
early years of the Castro regime in
Cuba. She would tell me these stories
in the backyard when I was a
kid, speaking quietly, as if she were
still living within the impermeable
cell walls of the island.
Her memories of Cuba under
Castro is why she loved Willy Chirino.
The Cuban exile and musician
expressed his artistic practice in this
way:
“Yo me siento inspirado y un
son estoy cantando, anunciándole
a todos mis hermanos que nuestro
día ya viene llegando.
“I feel inspired, so a son [classically
Cuban genre] I am singing, announcing
to all of my siblings that
our day is coming.”
Chirino is the voice of many
frustrated Cuban-Americans, who,
with desperate loyalty, cling to
the vision of a free Cuba—the day
that is coming. The day when Cuba
would finally be free, and Willy
Chirino could return.
For some, that day has already
come. Nearly seven years ago, a ban
was silently uplifted across Cuban
radio stations. The music of famed
anti-Castro rebels would be played
at last—that of Celia Cruz, Gloria
Estefan, and, yes, Willy Chirino. According
to the BBC, government
officials told radio disc jockeys that
the blacklist of artists was outdated
and had served its purpose. Now, it
was time for Cuba to open its doors.
So maybe that wall is being
torn down. But are musicians protesting
the government truly free
today, or is there still a robust regime
suppressing their expression?
Will President Díaz-Canel actually
tear down this wall that separates
Cuba from the rest of the musical
world?
Only parts, it seems. While the
music of past dissenters gets radio
time, a new Orwellian decree
prevents contemporary protesters
from reaching a wide audience,
showing that Cuba still has a long
way to go in freeing its musicians.
To find the roots of this censorship
regime, we can go back to
1976, when Cuba, under Castro’s
autocratic rule, approved a new
constitution. Here are some highlights
from Chapter 4, Article 38,
Section 2:
d) Artistic creation can be freely
expressed, as long as its content is
not contrary to the Revolution. The
forms of expression in art are free;
e) The State, to the end of elevating
the culture of the people, is
in charge of elevating and developing
artistic education, the vocation
involved in its creation, and the cultivation
of art and the capacity of
appreciating it.”
In line with its stated purpose
of “elevating the culture of the
people,” the Castro government
introduced a robust program to
support the production of music
as propaganda. Its first step was
to create institutions that would
make mass-music production possible.
Cuba promised free musical
education and guaranteed salaries
and housing for the most prominent
musicians--all of whom abided
by the Orwellian constitution,
of course. As a result, music crafted
and supported from the inside—nueva
trova—was especially
appealing to any young hopefuls
looking for a future.
The idea of the state elevating
the culture of the people was fundamental
not only to Castro, but to
the beliefs of his fellow revolutionaries.
For instance, Che Guevara—
the Argentinian doctor-turned-revolutionary-murderer
affectionately
referred to as “el Ché” by a certain
strain of academics—insisted the
new order was to be “socialism with
pachanga [a street party with Latin
music].” Knowing that music and

FEATURE
COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // WINTER 2019 // 08
song were, and are, instrumental
to the Cuban sociocultural fabric,
he aimed to turn them into tools of
conscious propaganda that would
serve as powerful mobilizing factors
in rebellion and revolution.
This idea would manifest most notably
in Silvio Rodríguez’s government-backed
songs in support of
Cuba’s revolutionary achievements,
especially in Nicaraguan communist
propaganda. Take Betto Arcos’
perspective on Silvio’s song, a classic
revolutionary anthem:
“[Silvio Rodriguez’s “Te Doy
Una Canción”] is a song that is an
anthem, and it became an anthem
all over Cuba, all over Latin America
because it says I give you a song, my
homeland. I give you a song with the
hands that kill, with the hands that
give you a guerilla, with the hands
that work day to day. This is someone
that was deeply immersed into
the revolutionary culture of Castro,
and he sang the songs of the revolution.”
–Betto Arcos, on an NPR Podcast
on “The Birth Of ‘Nueva Trova
Cubana’ And Other Music Styles In
Castro’s Cuba”
Despite its eventual embrace
of music like Silvio Rodriguez’s, the
Cuban government initially regarded
nueva trova with skepticism,
even jailing a major proponent of
the style, Pablo Milanés, for “insubordination”
in 1967. But by the early
’70s, nueva trova was institutionalized
and supported by the state.
When Yoruba (Cuban Afro-Catholic
religious music,
santería) was legalized by Castro in
1959, it was viewed as an explicit
upholding of the tenet of natural
equality, which is fundamental to
communist ideology. It rendered
Castro’s initial legalization of historically
African music into a genuine
move toward a racially-egalitarian
society. Of course, it could also be
seen as a reaction against what Castro
saw as the inherently racist system
of imperial capitalism associated
with Cuba’s American foes. For
these reasons, government-supported
agencies like the Casa de las
Americas had mandates to research
and preserve uniquely Afro-Cuban
musical traditions, as well as support
the nueva trova. The Ministry
of Culture also tried to elevate the
rumba, once a street dance of the
mainly black working class first developed
in the nineteenth century
slums of Havana and Matanzas, into
a truly national dance through formal
training for performers.
Like nueva trova, Yoruba music
was originally viewed with ambivalence.
Over time, with its eventual
incorporation into musical curricula
and government-sponsored stages,
the styles were legitimized. The
new constitution also raised these
styles’ profile; Yoruba only became
acceptable when the government
took it upon itself to elevate traditional
Cuban music.
Fidel Castro not only created
an entire institution behind music-as-propaganda,
he intensely
embraced music in his speeches.
In an infamous 1961 address, Castro
spoke out about the rights (or
lack thereof) of artists and musicians
at Cuba’s national library, stating,
“What are revolutionary and
non-revolutionary writers’ and artists’
rights? Under the revolution:
everything; against the revolution,
none.” The Castro regime made it
clear that revolutionary music was
integral to the revolutionary agenda.
While pro-government music
was given a platform in Cuba, subversive
music was silenced. With
few exceptions, Cuba viewed emigrating
Cuban musicians as defectors
and gusanos (worms), banning
both their music and the formal
study of it within Cuba.
This ban included, of course,
the music of Celia Cruz, the Queen
of Salsa. In the early 1960’s, Celia
was touring with La Sonora in Mexico
when Fidel Castro and his regime
came to power. All but one band
member refused to go back to Cuba
under those political conditions,
which led Castro to issue a lifetime
ban on their entry into the country.
In 1962, after Celia’s mother passed
of cancer, she attempted to return
but was not granted government
permission.
After her death in 2003, the
national Cuban newspaper Granma
reported her death in a mere
two-sentence obituary:
“Durante las últimas cuatro
décadas se mantuvo sistemáticamente
activa en las campañas contra
la Revolución Cubana generadas
desde Estados Unidos, por lo que
fue utilizada como ícono por el enclave
contrarrevolucionario del Sur
de la Florida.”
“During her last four decades
she maintained herself systematically
active in the campaigns
against the Cuban Revolution generated
from the United States, acts
for which she was utilized as an
icon for the counterrevolutionary
enclave in South Florida.”
Thirty-seven studio albums,
two Grammy Awards, three Latin
Grammy Awards, and a Guinness
World Record for Longest Working
Career as a Salsa Artist were all reduced
to nothing by the government-sponsored
national newspa-

09 // WINTER 2019 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW FEATURE
per.
To Castro, Celia Cruz was only
another “ideological diversionism”,
a distraction from his authoritarian
project. That’s how Fidel baptized
the cultural phenomena that
occurred outside his sphere of influence,
and, consequently, at the
periphery of his small island of approval.
The early years saw the most
stringent censorship. That’s the
time through which my grandma
lived, when her brothers listened
with their ears pressed against the
ground, wanting more than anything
to know what was going on.
Celia wasn’t the only one banned
in this era. Major Cuban artists who
showed express distaste for the tyrannical
power would be banned
from returning—Olga Guillot, Rolando
Lecuona, Paquito D’Rivera,
Arturo Sandoval, Willy Chirino—
even though their music wasn’t
nearly as abrasive as their speech.
Their return to radio stations would
only be allowed after the lift of the
ban.
With the lift of the ban, these
artists’ work joined the traditional
music that was seen as quintessentially
Cuban, that music that had
been allowed and supported by
government-funded institutions.
But what does the government say
about reggaetón and other contemporary
youth genres?
Reggaetón is a Carribbean
fusion of rap, hip-hop, and Latin
styles. In Latin America, rap and
hip-hop emerged during the 1990s
as vehicles for “cultural exchange
and even detente.” Some 500 rap
groups are found in Cuba, and by
2000 there had been several visits
by Cuban rappers to the U.S., as well
as visits by progressive American
rappers to the island. The development
of Cuban rap seems to parallel
several other Latin American rap
movements, all of which emphasize
awareness about underlying social
problems.
The government found rap and
reggaetón categeorically vulgar
and demeaning because of their
overtly sexual lyrics and banned
them in 2012. Though in some ways
the restrictions have eased up in
the years since, Cuba still prohibits
reggaetón artists from appearing
on most state-run TV and radio and
from recording in state-run studios.
In light of these preexistent
rules, the recent announcement
of Decree 349 in July 2018—one
of the first actions made by President
Diaz-Canel—was declared
by the Artists At Risk Connection
as particularly dangerous. Under
the decree, “all artists, including
collectives, musicians and performers,
are prohibited from operating
in public or private spaces
without prior approval by the Ministry
of Culture”. The public order
offenses under Title IV (many of
which could in theory be applied
to musical production or performance)
are blatantly opposed to
true freedom of expression. Title
IV also gives authorities power to
shut down artistic activity if they
feel something contains “sexist,
vulgar or obscene language.” As
usual, when it comes to legislation
restricting freedom of speech, the
broader it is, the more restrictive it
is. A popular Cuban rapper, Pipo, is
a victim of this censorship. His brutal
arrest this year may have been
a result of its strict enforcement.
Because reggaetón is not
“elevated” art cultivated in
institutions when compared to
Yoruba music for example, it is
seen as subversive of the regime,
and not worthy of display on
the national stage. This sort of
suppression is most explicitly
represented in recent Cuban
censorship with Decree 349.
Though the uplift has allowed oldschool
Cuban music to return (the
kind that is not overtly anti-Castro)
the Decree prevents contemporary
music like reggaetón from fully
flourishing.
The president of the Cuban
Music Institute, Orlando Vistel
Columbié, spoke in its defense.
He told the official Cuban government
newspaper Granma in 2012:
“Neither vulgarity, nor mediocrity,
will be able to obscure the
richness of cuban music … We
refer to pseudoartistic music, the
kind that has nothing to do with
our society’s ethics.”
He goes on to say, “Del son y
la salsa al jazz y de la canción y la
rumba...Esa es la verdad de la música
y de los músicos cubanos.” (“Of a
son and salsa and jazz and of song
and rumba … These speak truly
to music and Cuban musicians.”)
As much as Vistel insists it does
not, this sentiment replicates the
elitism of Cuba’s past. While older
styles, such as salsa, have been
set free, the newer styles crafted
by young people have been met
with extreme opposition. This contradiction
reveals a great chasm
between what the officials say
and what is actually happening.
In reality, these restrictions are no
attempt at moralizing the Cuban
people, but an effort to limit what
the Cuban people can hear. It’s yet
another implementation of the
same principles outlined in Castro’s
1976 constitution.
Cuban government officials
scrambled with this new subversive
genre at its advent. In an at-

FEATURE
COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // // SUMMER WINTER 2018 2019 // // 110
tempt to “heighten” it, as they did
with Yoruba, they formed the Cuban
Rap Agency, or CRA, as a way
to deal with urban music on the
island. Musicians in a genre with
dissent at its root were, of course,
unhappy. One Cuban rapper said,
“When the Cuban Rap Agency has
to make a decision, whose interests
are they going to protect? The
government’s? Or hip-hop’s?”
In 2018, Vice Minister of Culture
Fernando Rojas gave an interview
in Havana and said that
he accepted the “well-intentioned
criticisms of Cuba’s artistic community,”
but that protests “were part
of wider, foreign-backed scheme
to destabilize the country by damaging
the image of its cultural institutions.”
So yes, the Cuban Rap
Agency was going to protect the
government’s interests. Not hiphop’s.
And not reggaetón’s.
In a supposedly new regime
under President Díaz-Canel, old
patterns nevertheless return. Artists
who dare to skirt the edges
of the island, beyond the boxes
of censorship, are punished. The
difference this time is that modernity
and the internet make total
censorship far more difficult. If pictures
hadn’t surfaced, we wouldn’t
have heard of Pipo’s brutal arrest.
There, perhaps, is a semblance of
hope.
It is difficult to say if the day
will come when Cuban music will
be completely free. For Willy Chirino
and upholders of classic Cuban
tradition, that day of returning
may be much sooner than once
expected. For reggaetoneros,
whose voices of dissent are overt,
that day may be far away. ☐
“Una revolución no envía a
jóvenes injusto a prisión
Tampoco censura a los periodistas
independientes
O a los artistas contestatarios
de la televisión
Respeta de cada persona
su opinión
Eso es una revolución.”
“A revolution does not send
young people unjustly to prison
Neither does it censor independent
journalists
Nor contesting artists on television
It respects the opinion of every
person
That is a revolution.”
–Pupito’s lyrics, from a September
2, 2019 interview with
14ymedio while he was in prison

11 // WINTER 2019 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW INTERNATIONAL POLITCS
WHY DID PRIME MINISTER
ABIY AHMED OF ETHIOPIA
WIN THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE?
Charlie Wallace
Successful trans-border conflict
resolution has historically
been an extremely common catalyst
to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
In 1998, John Hume of Ireland and
David Trimble of the United Kingdom
were awarded the Peace
Prize for working to end a war.
The same can be said of the 1994
cooperation between Palestinian
Yasser Arafat and Israelis Yitzhak
Rabin and Shimon Peres. Muhmmad
Anwar al-Sadat of Egypt and
Menachem Begin of Israel were
awarded the Peace Prize in 1978,
as were Lê Đức Thọ of North Vietnam
and Henry Kissinger of the
United States in 1973. It is not
shocking, then, that after quelling
the conflict between Ethiopia
and Eritrea, the Nobel Peace Prize
was awarded to the Prime Minister
of Ethiopia, Abiy Ahmed. Interestingly,
the Nobel committee
unilaterally awarded the Peace
Prize to Ahmed, excluding Eritrean
President Isaias Afwerki.
What Prime Minister Abiy
Ahmed’s accomplished in a mere
year and half is awe-inspiring.
Eritrea and Ethiopia had been
marred in a border conflict from
1998 until the signing of the
“Joint Declaration of Peace and
Friendship between Ethiopia and
Eritrea” on September 17th, 2018.
This twenty-year war claimed
100,000 lives and resulted in the
suspension of all air-service between
the two countries, the
disconnection of phone lines, as
well as the separation of many
families between the two nations.
The Joint Declaration restarted
air service, re-opened the phone
lines, and reunited families. Prime
Minister Ahmed even unconditionally
returned the town of Badme
to Eritrea after sixteen years
ignoring the Hague’s decision
that Eritrea’s claim to the disputed
border region was stronger.
On the domestic front, Prime
Minister Ahmed offered pardons
and amnesty to thousands of political
opponents that had been
branded as terrorists. Media organizations
were granted broader
freedom in reporting and reform
councils were started to review
laws that had been used for repressing
political and civil rights.
Ahmed lifted a state of emergency
and promoted gender reform
by selecting women to hold positions
in a historically male-dominanted
cabinet.
Unfortunately, the Prime
Minister’s reforms have also reignited
ethnic violence across the
country. With this rapid liberalization,
Ethiopia appears to be
on a crash course to become the
world’s next Yugoslavia. Ethiopia
is home to 110 million people,
80 ethnic groups, and 86 actively
spoken languages; in short, it
is a diverse giant. Ethiopia’s nine
federal states were drawn to offer
territorial autonomy to large
ethnic groups. Yet Ethnic rivalries
have caused 2.9 million Ethiopians
to be internally displaced, the
highest number of internally displaced
people in the world. The
divisiveness of Ethiopian politics
was clearly displayed in June of
2019 when an attempted coup
occurred in the Northern Amhara
Region.
Ahmed, the leader who has
been internationally lauded for
his improvements in the arena of
free speech and political rights,
suddenly reverted the country
back to its old habits. The internet
was completely shut off for six
days and carried out mass arrests
throughout the country. Unfortunately,
this wasn’t the first time
the Prime Minister hit the killswitch
on the country’s internet.
Within the month following the
restoration of internet connection
after the coup, the internet
was inexplicably shut down several
times, and full access to Facebook,
WhatsApp, and Instagram

FEATURE INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // WINTER SUMMER 2019 2018 // // 123
had not been returned. When the
internet kill-switch is employed,
the populace is effectively rendered
dependent on state media
for updates about the coup.
Since the peace deal, there
has been tangible backtrack
on the Prime Minister’s record.
Large border crossings, such as
Zalambessa, were opened with
grand celebrations following the
Peace Deal. They were quickly
shut down again. The Eritrean
Embassy that was promised to be
reopened remains closed, with
no progress thus far. One day before
the Nobel Prize was awarded,
Ahmed held an event called
“Medemer,” meaning inclusivity
and togetherness in Amharic,
with neighboring nations. Uganda,
Somalia, and Sudan all sent
representatives for the talks. But
there was a notable absence of
Eritrean President Afewerki and
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah
al Sisi.
While hopeful talks with Eritrea
have completely stagnated,
a new trans-border conflict
involving Ethiopia is brewing.
Ethiopia plans to build a massive
dam named the Grand Ethiopian
Renaissance Dam, near the
border with Ethiopia. This dam
would further deplete Egypt’s access
to the Nile River Waters that
it so desperately needs. There
has been a dramatic rise in bellicose
rhetoric, with Prime Minister
Ahmed threatening that he
“could muster an army of a million
men to defend the dam.” Ahmed’s
statements led to a quick rebuke
from Egyptian officials. The head
of Egypt’s Parliament Defense
and Security Committee told
journalists that he would “authorize
President Abdel Fattah al Sisi
to declare war on Addis Ababa.”
Domestically, Prime Minister
Ahmed is facing even more challenges.
On October 25, 2019, just
weeks after receiving the Nobel
Peace Prize, the rapidly worsening
Balkanization came to a head.
67 people died in anti-Ahmed
protests and 200 were injured after
a vocal critic of the Prime Minister,
Jawar Mohammed, accused
Ahmed of plotting an assassination
attempt against him. Bloody
protests erupted in the cities of
Addis Ababa, Harar, and Ambo.
There has been sharp criticism
from domestic sources about
Ahmed’s handling of the crisis:
the Prime Minister decided to
stay in Russia and said nothing to
calm domestic anxiety surrounding
the event.
Critics from around the globe
have protested Ahmed’s selection
for the Nobel Peace Prize,
claiming the presentation is premature
in light of the absence
of much tangible progress since
his ascension to power in 2018.
The Nobel Committee’s press release
even said, “No doubt some
people will think this year’s prize
is being awarded too early.” And
a nominator of Ahmed for the
Peace Prize, Awol K Allo, commented
that he “nominated him
partly because I view the Nobel
Peace Prize as a call to action - a
prestigious award that would
give Abiy the moral authority to
redouble his effort.” These claims
appear to go against the will of
Alfred Nobel, as outlined by the
criterion for the Prize: it should
be awarded “to the person who
shall have done the most or the
best work for fraternity between
nations, the abolition or reduction
of standing armies and for
the holding and promotion of
peace congresses.” Nowhere does
it, even remotely, imply that the
Prize and its associated one million
dollars should be used as an
incentive to do further work.
There is worry that the Nobel
Committee is attempting to
tip the scales in Ethiopia’s hotly-contested
upcoming elections.
Ahmed was first made head of the
governing coalition, the Ethiopian
People’s Revolutionary Democratic
Front, when Prime Minister
Hailemariam Desalegn stepped
down from office and has still yet
to win a national popular vote.
The premature awarding of the
Nobel Prize could be seen as the
broader international community
attempting to sway domestic
Ethiopian politics rather than permitting
them to reflect the will of
the Ethiopian people.
While Prime Minister Ahmed’s
domestic strides are impressive
and deserve recognition, he does
not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize
at this point. This year, the Nobel
Peace Prize was given prematurely
because there have yet to be
true results from his efforts with
Eritrea. In addition, Ahmed has
reverted, in some ways, back to a
style of leadership he previously
condemned--he repeatedly used
the internet kill-switch when convenient
and quelled protests by
authorizing violence perpetrated
by his security forces. The Nobel
Prize, by definition, should not
be used to incentivize a leader to
do something that the larger international
committee hopes will
be accomplished in the leader’s
country, nor should it be used to
sway upcoming elections by taking
away the self-determination
of the country’s populace.☐

13 // WINTER 2019 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
THE FAILURES OF REFUGEE
CAMPS IN EUROPE
Stella Cavedon
In 2015, more than 900,000
starved and frightened refugees
arrived on the shores of Greece.
The European refugee crisis is
not a new phenomenon but
the number of people seeking
safety has
escalated
significantly
since 2015,
the majority
coming
from Syria,
Afghanistan,
and Turkey.
Many of
these refugees
are escaping the Syrian
Civil War, the second deadliest
conflict of the 21st century, and
were unable to enter neighboring
Arab countries without
proper legal documentation.
Decade-long wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq have also forced
millions of people to cross the
Mediterranean Sea to escape violence
and oppression. Europe
is their best option for survival.
The European Union, a political
and economic group of
28 countries, does not have a
stable or systematic approach
to assist this influx of people.
The Common European Asylum
System, an initiative that began
in 1999, distinguishes migrants
into two categories: “refugees”
and “economic migrants.” Refugees
are people escaping from
war, natural disaster, or persecution
from a political entity.
Economic migrants, on the
“[M]ost refugee camps do not even meet the
basic legal requirements; and yet, little to nothing has
been done to implement change. ”
other hand, have relocated for
economic opportunity and are
not in immediate danger. Under
this system, EU states are
legally required to accept all migrants
that qualify for refugee
status. If states violate this law,
they can either defend their decision
in the European Court of
Human Rights or leave the EU.
The Dublin Regulation, the
core procedure of CEAS, requires
the first country that a
migrant enters to process their
application for refugee status. A
migrant cannot submit applications
to multiple states and must
stay within the first country they
entered until their application
is approved. Greece, Spain, and
Italy hold the disproportionate
burden of accepting larger
quantities of illegal migrants
due to their geographical location.
This year, out of the 34,000
migrants seeking asylum in Europe,
16,292
entered
in Greece,
12,064 in
Spain, and
3,186 in Italy.
While
migrants
wait to be
processed
by their host
country, they are sheltered in
state facilities called “refugee
camps.” The EU has raised the
standards for the living conditions
within the camps but most
states have failed to implement
these reforms. The management
of the facilities is often corrupt
and financially incapable of providing
basic necessities for asylum
seekers. The EU has allowed
this mistreatment of refugees
to continue by failing to pursue
disciplinary action against countries
providing inadequate living
conditions. In fact, most refugee
camps do not even meet the

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // WINTER 2019 // 14
basic legal requirements; and
yet, little to nothing has been
done to implement change.
Refugee Camps in Greece
Since 2015, one million
people migrating from Turkey
have applied for refugee status
in Greece. In 2016, Greece and
Turkey signed the EU-Turkey
Statement, an agreement that
Greece would send migrants
not approved for refugee status
back to Turkey. After the statement
was enacted, Greece created
the Moria refugee camp on
the island of Lesbos, assuming
it would be the ideal location
for temporary asylum seekers.
The Greek government did not
anticipate that 14,000 refugees
would be living in a space
created for 3,000 individuals.
Migrants from Turkey,
Egypt, and Libya are crammed
into small, inhospitable spaces
and forced to wait more than 12
hours in line for food that is often
spoiled. There is one shower
and one toilet for every 70 to
80 refugees. Numerous accusations
of sexual assault and knife
attacks have been made by residents,
but no investigations or
disciplinary actions have been
pursued. The lead psychiatric
doctor is overwhelmed with
cases of mental illness and has
prescribed the majority of his
patients with antipsychotic
medication. Over one quarter of
the children living in the camp
have contemplated suicide.
Earlier this month, a protest
erupted at the Moria camp after
a refugee died in a violent fire
and two children were killed.
Moria has become a “death
trap” instead of a safe haven
from war, starvation, and abuse.
Refugee Camps in Germany
When migrants first arrive
in Germany, they are placed in
“holding and processing centers”
that are hotbeds for disease
and violence. The Fürstenfeldbruck
center, located near
Munich, has banned reporters
from entering the premises. If
media outlets wish to conduct
interviews, they must meet the
refugees outside of the center. A
reporter from the state-owned
network, Deutsche Welle, was
able to conduct an interview
with a group of refugees. The
residents revealed that one toilet
shared by 50 people, one room
contains eight residents, and
food is scarce. The doctor can
only admit 70 patients per day
and spends less than five minutes
treating each individual.
When Deutsche Welle asked
the Local Integration Commissioner
if the center meets the
legal standard of living, he answered
that the facilities “are
supposed to be uncomfortable
and humiliating to motivate
those who have no real
need for protection to leave
the country, preferably on their
own accord.” The Town Councillor
called the camp a “giant
storage cupboard for human
beings.” This “storage cupboard”

15 // FALL 2019// COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
is intended to house people for
a maximum of two years, but
most migrants are forced to
stay longer because they cannot
enter another state without
legal documentation or money.
Refugee Camps in Italy
you have any idea how much I
make off of migrants? They’re
more profitable than drugs.”
Salvini also left 1,500 refugees
homeless by bulldozing
the San Ferdinando camp located
in Catania. He has failed
to fulfill his promise to find an
alternative shelter as refugees
report living in abandoned
houses on the countryside.
Numerous camps across Italy
have come to a similar end,
leaving thousands of refugees
unemployed and homeless.
France has also closed camps
to reduce their intake of refugees
instead of improving the living
conditions. In October 2016,
the French government demolished
the infamous “Jungle of
Calais,” evicting over 8,000 refugees.
Stefan Simanowitz from
Amnesty International claims
that “the demolition of the Jungle
Camp did not end the plight
of the refugees and migrants in
Calais and things also got harder
for those trying to help them.”
Two evictions of refugee
families occur each week with
sudden and unnecessary brutality.
The police force enters
tents without notice and secures
a parameter to prevent
refugees from taking their belongings.
The Guardian reported
an incident where French
authorities stopped a mother
from retrieving her own child.
These evictions have caused
over 1,300 refugees to cross the
dangerous English Channel in
an attempt to reach England.
The Grande-Synthe camp
was opened in March 2019
to replace the Jungle Camp.
Grande-Synthe may be an improvement
from the Jungle,
but the conditions are quickly
deteriorating: 87% of refugees
do not have access to
“Two evictions of
refugee families occur each week with sudden and unnecessary brutality...
These evictions have caused over 1,300 refugees to cross the dangerous English
Channel in an attempt to reach England.”
Italy has protested the Dublin
Regulation because the system
places a disproportionate
burden upon its economic resources
in comparison to other
European states. Prime Minister
Matteo Salvini has closed multiple
refugee camps because the
state’s economy cannot sustain
such a large influx of people.
Earlier this year, Salvini displaced
hundreds of refugees
by closing the Cara di Mineo
camp, a breeding ground for
corruption and organized criminal
activities. The leaders of the
camp stole public funds from
Italy and the EU, and provided
little to no support to the refugees.
According to locals, both
the Italian and the Nigerian Mafia
made the camp their headquarters
for drug operations. A
man from Senegal reported that
these gangs forced women to
engage in sexual activities both
inside and outside of the camp.
The ring-leader for the Mafia
Capitale, Salvatore Buzzi, was
caught on wiretap boasting: “do
Refugee Camps in France
toilets and over 50% are not
adequately fed. Many refugees
pay English smugglers to
help them escape the camp.
…
The European refugee crisis
stems from the EU’s lack of
financial means and political
support to host the enormous
amount of people entering the
system each day. Immigrants of
all ages are struggling to survive
in a camp that promised them
safety. The EU must resolve this
crisis by enforcing better living
conditions within refugee
camps, increasing the speed of
processing applications, and
integrating refugees into their
new states. Without the collective
cooperation of all European
states, significant and lasting
progress will not be achieved. ☐

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // WINTER 2019 // 16
LEARNING FROM LEBANON
Raya Tarawneh
Lebanon’s enduring crisis. Lebanon
has been suffering through
a trash crisis since 2015, as landfills
have been overflowing onto
the streets and trash has barely
been collected. A standoff in Parliament
left the country without
an acting president from May
2014 to October 2016. Power
outages are the only consistent
feature of Lebanese infrastructure.
And, to address the elephant
in the room: sectarianism
continues to plague the country.
the allocation of power among
rigidly defined religious groups
since long before independence
from France. The National Pact,
an unwritten agreement which
dictates that the president must
be a Maronite Christian, the
prime minister a Sunni Muslim,
and the speaker of parliament a
Shi’a Muslim, came into play at
Lebanon’s 1943 declaration of
independence. Despite officially
recognizing eighteen different
religious sects, Lebanon spent
“Yet, we must be careful not to undermine the mettle of
the Lebanese people...the demonstrations have created a
long overdue sense of cultural intimacy,
uniting the fractious nation.”
Since October 17th, mass
protests have taken Lebanon by
storm in a manner that is unprecedented.
These protests have
been largely inclusive, and they
are emblematic of the tenacity
of the Lebanese people. Across
cities, towns, and villages, citizens
are taking to the streets to
demand that their leaders step
down. Rampant corruption perpetuated
by a broken political
system lies at the root of Lebanon’s
problems, but the immediate
impetus for the protests
was a series of events that occurred
in close proximity to each
other: energy problems, a dollar
shortage, an incompetently
handled forest fire, and the
final straw –– a WhatsApp tax,
all against the backdrop of a financial
crisis compounded by
burgeoning government debt.
These recent events are the
most recent manifestation of
In fact, it is this unprecedented
absence of sectarianism that
has made the current protests
significant. As one Economist article
puts it, perhaps Prime Minister
Saad Hariri’s only accomplishment
is that “he has united
a factious country in disgust.”
Sectarianism—religiously
rooted discrimination—constitutes
an inalienable part of Lebanese
history and permeates
the country’s politics. Lebanon
has been regarded as a “multiconfessional”
state defined by
fifteen years of its history torn by
protracted civil war between Maronite,
Sunni, Shi’a, Alawi, Druze,
and secular local actors, in addition
to regional and international
powers. Even the power-sharing
agreement that brought the civil
war to an end reinforced sectarian
notions: the 1989 Taif Accords
further institutionalized the role
of sectarianism in government.
It is this stubborn, deeply ingrained
sectarianism that complicates
prospects of change. Even
toppling Hariri’s government

17 // WINTER 2019 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
cannot rectify this reality. This
notion does not serve to absolve
the politicians, many of whom
are warlords that have profited
from sectarianism. It is merely to
say that protestors face the challenge
of an political system that
is deeply entrenched. As the Arab
Spring has shown, enacting substantive
and meaningful change
in any country is difficult. In Lebanon,
it can be likened to walking
on eggshells: the precarious
question of who will fill the power
vacuum that will exist if the
government is toppled is worrisome.
Dismantling a fragile political
system in a country like Lebanon
must therefore be gradual
and involve substantive, structural
change. The shift away from
a self-serving, corrupt government
to a progressive, functional
one cannot occur overnight.
Yet, we must be careful not
to undermine the mettle of the
Lebanese people, who have carried
their country’s flag above
their many sectarian banners.
That the protests have remained
leaderless is perhaps their greatest
strength. Irrespective of the
means by which change can
or should be enacted, the protesters
have done enough by
acknowledging that there is no
longer room for the status quo
to persist and by simply putting
pressure on the current regime,
both of which prompted Prime
Minister Hariri’s resignation.
Even more so, the demonstrations
have created a long overdue
sense of cultural intimacy,
uniting the fractious nation.
Indeed, protestors have literally
transcended the divides that
plagued the 2005 Cedar Revolution:
they formed an actual human
chain from the north to the
south of the country as a symbol
of unity. They are fighting a cause
that is decidedly non-sectarian.
Nearly three weeks since
they ignited, it is imperative that
the Lebanese protests do not
lose momentum. Sustainable
change requires patience and
persistence. Perhaps there is a
middle ground to be found between
diving headfirst into the
deep waters of the unknown and
remaining in the muddy shallows
of the current system. Let
Lebanon be the first nation in the
Levant to prove it can be done. ☐

A CHANGING AMERICA
COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // WINTER 2019 // 18
A MIXED-STATUS FAMILY IS
AN AMERICAN FAMILY
Maria Castillo
In the contemporary immigration
debate, the idea of the
“American Family” is commonly
weaponized, evoked in arguments
by Republican politicians
in favor of stricter and harsher
policies. The American Family,
as the narrative goes, must be
protected and defended by nativist,
xenophobic, and anti-immigrant
policies that restrict
the rights and protections held
by the undocumented community.
As immigration policy
has been a key issue within the
Democratic primary––and will
surely be a contentious issue in
the general election––it is critical
for Democrats to debunk
the baseless and underinclusive
vignette of the American
Family that Republicans fabricate
when discussing immigration
policy. In order for the
immigration debate to become
fairer and more honest, we
must first reject that American
Family mythos. Undocumented
immigrants aren’t only the
neighbors, family friends, or acquaintances
of members of the
American Family—they are active
members of the American
Family.
Implicit in the structure of
the so-called American Family
are two distinct populations
within American society: U.S.
citizens and undocumented
immigrants. Each population
is presented as a perfectly-cut
square box, wholly separate
from the other population.
Mixed-status families serve as a
powerful reminder of just how
blurred the lines separating
those two populations are.
According to the Center
for Advanced Studies in Child
Welfare at the Immigration
Law Center of Minnesota, a
mixed-status family is defined
as “a family with members of
varying legal status.” These
families may consist of members
with any combination of
legal status: the quintessential
mixed-status family consists of
undocumented parents and
U.S.-born children, but that is
certainly not the only variety of
mixed-status family.
Republicans have established
in their political arguments
that to fight on behalf of
undocumented immigrants is
to actively fight against the interests
and well-being of United
States citizens. An example
of the constructed dichotomy
between these two populations
is an exchange during a debate
between the two candidates in
the 2018 U.S. Senate election
in Texas. When asked about his
stance on immigration reform
during a 2018 debate—specifically
in regard to support for
people who qualify for Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals
status—Senator Ted Cruz stated,
“[My opponent] over and
over seems to be fighting for
illegal immigrants by supporting
[immigration reform]; [he]
is forgetting about millions of
Americans. You know, Americans
are dreamers also.”
Aside from existing as
something that must be protected
from undocumented immigrants,
the American Family
that Republicans create is a unit
that is fundamentally supplanted
and robbed by progressive
policies such as sanctuary cities,
legal aid for immigrants undergoing
immigration hearings,
and access to medical services
for undocumented residents.
There is a sophisticated ideology
behind this school of thought,
which is exemplified in an article
published by The Heritage
Foundation’s president, Kay
Cole James, entitled “It’s Time
for the Senate to Put Americans
and Their Dreams First.” Regard-

19 // WINTER 2019 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW A CHANGING AMERICA
ing the 2018 government shutdown
over border wall funding,
she writes, “Schumer and his liberal
colleagues seem to prefer
asking Americans to defer their
dreams for those of illegals.
Right now, there’s a teenage
girl in Appalachia who dreams
of a great education but sits in
a school that isn’t delivering. A
factory worker who dreams of
regaining work that went overseas
earlier this decade. An urban
mom who dreams of health
care for her son but has to wait
in an overcrowded emergency
room. These are dreamers all.
And they’re Americans.” She
uses similar language to Senator
Ted Cruz, invoking the word
“dreamers,” a term used to describe
individuals who qualified
and participated in the DACA
program.
Donald Trump’s “America
First” anti-immigration policies
is defined, in part, by an argument
based on that same constructed
dichotomy. His rhetoric
surrounding the immigration
debate is indelibly shaped by
the assumptions underlying
this dichotomy of citizens and
non-citizens. When speaking
about the goals he aims
to achieve through his hardline
immigration policies in his
first State of the Union speech,
Trump said, “Immigrant communities
will also be helped by
immigration policies that focus
on the best interests of American
workers and American families.”
After identifying American
Families as his priority, he
subsequently calls for stricter
enforcement policies and an
elevated presence of border
security agents. In the same
breath, Trump goes on to justify
this hard-line approach towards
immigration when he says, “As
president of the United States,
my highest loyalty, my greatest
compassion, my constant concern
is for America’s children…I
want our youth to grow up to
achieve great things.”
This rhetoric creates a dynamic
in which the American
Families and American Children
that he references are threatened
by and distant from the
undocumented population in
the United States. This line of
thought, aside from being profoundly
xenophobic, racist, and
factless, ignores the reality of
populations that are located
somewhere in between these
two polar opposites of the
spectrum.
When a politician references
American Families and American
Children, whom are they

A CHANGING AMERICA
COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // WINTER 2019 // 20
Among those 2.7 million people
in Texas, 1.4 million are U.S.
citizens––including 1 million
children. In California, there are
4.66 million U.S. citizens with at
least one undocumented family
member. This number includes
1.96 million children as well.
Taking these mixed status families
into account, along with
undocumented families all over
the country, we must begin to
reimagine the portrait of the
American Family.
Although Texas is among
the states with the highest immigrant
population in the country,
mixed-status families also
these families are composed of
one U.S. citizen and one undocumented
immigrant. The varying
citizenship and legal statuses
within individual families are
largely attributed to the fluctuation
of immigration policies, as
changing patterns of hardline
and lenient policies affect immigrants’
propensities to stay in
the United States or to return to
their home country.
For example, provisions
within the Immigration Reform
and Control Act of 1986
allowed immigrants to obtain
legal status once they arrived
in the United States. In more
“These issues serve as daunting
reminders of realities that are seldom acknowledged in
the current debate surrounding immigration.”
referencing? Which families and
children are sketched into their
portrait of the Americans whom
they are protecting and valuing
in the immigration debate?
In total, there are four million
U.S.-born children who
have undocumented parents,
directly challenging the premise
of a large separation between
American citizens and undocumented
immigrants. This also
refutes the portrait many politicians
create of whom American
Families and American
Children are. Around six million
U.S. born children live with an
undocumented family member,
which could be a parent or
a sibling. For a Republican party
that touts a veneration for
“family values” and the sanctity
of American citizenship, these
four million U.S. citizen children
represent a paradoxical reality
that undermines their binary
citizenship world.
According to recent research
by the University of
Southern California’s Center for
the Study of Immigrant Integration
and the Center of American
Progress, there are nearly
2.7 million Texans who have at
least one undocumented family
member living with them.
make up a significant part of
the entire country’s population.
Between seven and eight percent
of all children in the United
States have at least one undocumented
parent. Nine percent
of families in the United States
with children are mixed-status.
These statistics suggest that
nearly one in every ten American
child has an undocumented
parent and that nearly one in
every ten American family with
children is a mixed-status one.
Thirty-nine percent of parents
in mixed-status families
are both undocumented while
forty-one percent of parents in
recent years, the increased militarization
of the U.S.-Mexico
border has compelled many
immigrants who come as seasonal
workers for agricultural,
construction, and other forms
of menial labor to stay in the
United States despite lacking
the proper documentation.
By redefining the American
Family, Democrats will be able
to not only reframe the conservation
surround immigrant
populations, but also elucidate
issues faced by the undocumented
and mixed-status family
population.
In an interview about the

21 // WINTER 2019 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW A CHANGING AMERICA
prevalence of mixed-status
families in California and the issues
surrounding their community,
Jesus Martinez, Chair of the
Central Valley Immigrant Integration
Collaborative, sums up
this point succinctly by saying,
“The fluctuations in immigration
policies mean that family
members can easily have different
legal statuses depending
on when they arrived in the U.S.
Undocumented immigrants
who once traveled between
the U.S. and Mexico may not be
raising families full-time in the
United States and giving birth
to children who are citizens.
U.S-born children are going to
be able to be eligible for every
type of program imaginable, so
within the family there’s going
to be this unequal access to services,
to education, and medical
care. We see those families all
the time.”
Besides unequal access to
important services, there has
been a lot of research done on
the harmful impact of immigration
policy on the children within
mixed-status families. Several
immigration, globalization, and
education scholars argue that
some policymakers have not
considered the effects and potential
harm posed to children
in mixed-status families when
crafting immigration policy targeted
towards undocumented
immigrants. New York University
professor Hirozaku Yoshikawa
writes in her book Immigrants
Raising Citizens: Undocumented
Parents and their Children
that “4 million [citizen] children
share the same citizenship with
the children of the native-born.
Policy debates raging about undocumented
immigrants in the
United States fail to consider the
effect on children of all policies
targeting the undocumented.”
There are two critical problems
faced by mixed-status families
that are created directly by
American immigration policy.
The fear of deportation impacts
all members of mixed-status
families––including the U.S.
citizen members. Additionally,
children in mixed-status families
who are U.S. citizens do
not realize the full benefits of
their citizenship due to fearing
interaction with government
officials. These problems also
encapsulate the structural barriers
created by particularly harsh
immigration policies.
Current immigration policies
that contribute to these
problems within the mixed-status
community are prevalent
in the recently revamped immigration
policies of President
Trump’s presidency. In the beginning
of his administration,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) received new
directives regarding deportation
procedures that dismissed
an Obama-era directive that
placed priority on deporting
gang members and felons
over unauthorized immigrants
without a criminal record. The
Trump administration then expressed
intent to use “expedited
removal” of undocumented
immigrants at a larger capacity
than previous administrations,
which allows the government
to deport immigrants who have
been in the United States under
a certain period of time without
allowing them to have their day
in court.
Other hard-line immigration
policies under the current
administration include the
training of local and state law
enforcement officers to work
as de facto immigration officers
with the capacity to turn individuals
over to Immigration and
Customs Enforcement and the
denial of federal aid to “sanctuary
cities” that protect undocumented
and mixed-status families
by limiting their cooperation
with immigration enforcement
agencies.
These issues serve as daunting
reminders of realities that
are seldom acknowledged in
the current debate surrounding
immigration. How are Democrats
going to talk about the
consequences of deportation in
undocumented and mixed-status
families if the debate is
still framed around a mythical
American Family put in danger
by undocumented immigrants?
With notable differences
but also important similarities
to the undocumented population,
the mixed-status population
is a powerful example
of the complex reality of the
American Family. American children
in schools have parents,
siblings, cousins, aunts, and uncles
who are undocumented. A
good number of them are undocumented
themselves. It is
incredibly important to support
mixed status and undocumented
families and remember their
realities as we craft an immigration
debate moving forward.
The American Family is of no
particular legal status. ☐

A CHANGING AMERICA
COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // WINTER 2019 // 22
EXAMINING THE RECENT WAVE OF
STUDENT DISENFRANCHISEMENT
Olivia Choi
Unprecedented engagement
by youth voters with a
conspicuous leftward shift in
their politics amounts to a palpable
threat for Republicans in
2020. Recent data from the Pew
Research Center reports Gen
Z and Millennials are the most
liberal generations to date.
Larger proportions of these
age ranges favor expanded
government and progressive
approaches to climate change,
racial discrimination, and gender
fluidity when compared
to prior generations. Such developments
come in light of
skyrocketing rates of participation
in midterm voting by
college students. The rates of
college students voting in midterm
elections have more than
doubled from 2014 to 2018, increasing
from 19.3 percent to
40.3 percent. While historically
more reliable than midterms,
voting in presidential elections
is on an upward trend as well,
rising three percentage points
between 2012 to 2016.
What has followed these
developments, however, is a
concerted movement by conservative
legislators to curb
youth voting access and wrest
back Republican control. Such
tactics amount to nothing less
than voter suppression.
Florida elections package
SB 7066, which was approved
by Governor Ron DeSantis to
go into effect on July 1st of this

23 // WINTER 2019 // COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW
A CHANGING AMERICA
year, effectively eliminates polling
places on college campuses
by requiring early voting sites
to have “sufficient non-permitted
parking.” Due both to relatively
low vehicle ownership
among students and school-issued
student parking passes,
very few college campuses
have non-permitted parking.
And Florida’s recent legislation
is merely one amidst a wave of
laws passed this year that suppress
student voter turnout.
Arguably the most popular
weapon of choice by voter suppressors
is increased infringement
upon two indispensable
methods of ballot access for
college students: early and absentee
voting. This year, Arizona
legislators enacted Senate
Bills 1072 and 1090, extending
voter ID requirements to apply
to early voting and restricting
access to emergency early and
absentee voting. Indiana’s new
law HB 1311 requires voters
to submit an absentee ballot
application 8 days prior to the
election rather than 12, and Indiana
SB 560 limits state court
power to extend polling location
hours.
Furthermore, a measure
particularly salient in its hypocrisy
is Texas law HB 1888. The
legislation prohibits mobile
voting stations, many of which
are located on or near college
campuses because establishing
permanent stations there
would be too costly and logistically
infeasible. Texas House
Representative Greg Bonnen,
champion and author of HB
1888, has described the bill as
necessary to prevent “selective
vote harvesting.” Bonnen acknowledges
that “the flexibility
of polling locations was designed
to accommodate more
voters near their homes and
their workplaces,” but argues
“If Republican lawmakers genuinely had vulnerable voters’ interests at
heart, they would have expanded voting access to those areas they purport
to be excluded—rather than disenfranchising massive sectors of the
youth voting bloc. Instead, Republican legislators found a convenient
excuse to suppress one of the fastest rising liberal-voting demographics
in the nation...”
that “some subdivisions of the
state have abused this flexibility,
targeting desirable voting
populations at the exclusion
of others.” In a complaint filed
by the Texas Democratic Party,
however, the plaintiffs note that
the bill would disproportionately
disenfranchise college voters
rather than increase their voting
accessibility. The complaint
contested that “based on where
they live, some voters will enjoy
the same consistent access
to early voting they had previously,
but voters who live near
now defunct temporary voting
sites, especially young voters,
will suffer reduced or eliminated
access to the franchise.”
The tangible irony in Bonnen’s
hypocrisy is that HB 1888
is expressly designed to do just
the opposite of what he, the
bill’s author, claims. In effectively
eliminating critical polling locations
for college voters across
the state, the aforementioned
legislation actively suppresses
democracy. If Republican lawmakers
genuinely had vulnerable
voters’ interests at heart,
they would have expanded voting
access to those areas they
purport to be excluded—rather
than disenfranchising massive
sectors of the youth voting
bloc. Instead, Republican
legislators found a convenient
excuse to suppress one of the
fastest rising liberal-voting demographics
in the nation by
framing facilitated voter access
as an unwarranted advantage.
Student voter suppression
can and increasingly does continue
to take place in practice,
even when not encoded by law.
In Fairfax County, Virginia, officials
rejected 171 voter registration
applications of George
Mason University students just
weeks before the November 5th
elections for invalid residen-

A CHANGING AMERICA
COLUMBIA POLITICAL REVIEW // WINTER 2019 // 24
tial addresses. The county voting
officials claimed that listing
campus mailbox numbers and a
general university address prevented
the verification of voter
eligibility. The man responsible
for rejecting these applications,
registrar Gary Scott, has
received particular backlash by
civil rights groups for his decision
to send “notice of rejection”
letters to the students, a
violation of procedure under
Virginia election law. Rather, Virginia
election law requires that
the registrar send a request for
information on grounds of insufficient
address information.
Failure on the part of students
to re-register in time for the
November 5th elections after
receiving Scott’s notices would
have equated to voter ineligibility
in one of the nation’s most
pivotal local elections of the
year. Republican incumbents
defended a narrow majority of
51 to 48 in the Virginia House
of Delegates and 20 to 19 in
the Senate, with one vacancy
in each chamber. While Democrats
may have ultimately succeeded
in flipping both legislatures,
Scott’s actions again mark
a thinly-veiled attempt by government
officials to suppress
student voter turnout under the
guise of procedure.
These scare tactics and red
tape amount to de facto student
disenfranchisement. Such
disenfranchisement is only exacerbated
by false claims from
President Trump that registering
in two states constitutes
voter fraud. On the contrary,
merely registering in multiple
states is not a crime; only voting
twice constitutes a criminal of-
fense. Difficulty accessing
proper documentation,
inaccessibility of
polling sites, and convoluted
procedure regarding
early and absentee
voting further
fortify suppression of
the youth vote.
Fortunately, groups
across the country are
taking these voter suppression
laws to court.
Alongside students,
the League of Women
Voters of Florida and
the Andrew Goodman
Foundation are currently
challenging Florida
package SB 7066. While
the Texas Democratic
party fights HB 1888,
members of the D.C.-
based Lawyers’ Committee
for Civil Rights
Under Law have filed a
suit against the rejection
notices received by
171 George Mason University
students.
Granted, certain
politicians may find it
convenient to stand idle
in the face of disenfranchisement
if it is conducive
to their partisan
objectives. The temptation
has become all too
attractive in our current
political climate. But as
the 2020 election fast
approaches and polarization
continues to
shake Americans’ faith
in their democratic institutions,
securing full
and fair elections has
never been more important.
☐
Source: Pew Research Center

FOR MORE ARTICLES,
VISIT US ONLINE @
CPREVIEW.ORG