Approaches
The Florence Immigration and Refugee Rights Project
The arrival and apprehension of families and unaccompanied minors at the border between the United States and Mexico continue to be critical issues for those working to solve forced migration challenges. Poverty, land evictions, forced labor, child abuse, targeted gang violence, and climate change are a few reasons refugees seek asylum or migrate elsewhere. Unfortunately, asylum seekers face difficulty in fleeing adverse circumstances due to weak asylum laws and individual countries’ inadequate capacity to properly satisfy U.S. application status requirements. New rules and policies compound asylum seekers’ conditions to remain in border towns plagued with violence and trafficking. For instance, the U.S. Third-Country Transit ban, effective July 16, 2019, denies asylum to refugees who transited through a third country without applying for protection from persecution in at least one third country en route to the United States’ southern border. Federal judge Timothy Kelly in Washington, D.C., struck down the third-country transit rule in July 2020, claiming the Trump administration failed to abide by the notice-and-comment procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition, 2020). To address increases in asylum requests, the Trump administration instituted the metering policy, which dictates the amount of time asylum seekers must remain in Mexico before asylum procedures begin. This process could usually take from six weeks to three months, jeopardizing asylum seekers’ safety and well-being. However, federal or state regulation governing the numerical limitation of asylum seekers at designated ports of entry is nonexistent (Smith, 2019).
During the 1980s, numerous immigrants fleeing violence and persecution in Central America crossed the Mexico-Arizona border, eventually acquiring the need to birth the Florence Project as a defender of those suffering without a lawyer’s help. The Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project diligently assists those impacted by the “crimmigration” system in the United States to direct change. Crimmigration reflects experiences by individuals who seek a better quality of life but are instead inflicted with senseless incarceration probes because of the intersection between criminal and immigration law (Stumpf, 2006). Primarily helping those in Arizona, the Florence Project provides free legal and social services to detained children and adults for immigration removal proceedings.
The Florence Project functions as a nonprofit legal service organization offering high-quality representation and mental health assistance through its Integrated Social Service Program, established in 2002 to target crisis intervention, trauma, and other underlying social issues impacting immigrants. In addition to providing pro bono representation and a holistic approach to mental health, the Florence Project engages beneficial advocacy and outreach initiatives. The lack of resources and infrastructure to support refugees inspires the work of the Florence Project. At least 7,000 or more people are detained in immigration custody each day in the state of Arizona, leaving men, women, and children vulnerable to unjust laws (Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, 2021). Due to immigrants’ inability to receive free legal assistance except if found mentally unable to represent themselves, the Florence Project provides lawyers and social workers. Social workers and attorneys address complex cases and receive training on mechanisms to deal with patients who have experienced trauma and others with extenuating circumstances.
Movimiento Puente/Puente Human Rights Movement
In 1994, the United States passed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It led to Operation Gatekeeper’s development, specifically designed to keep out displaced Mexican workers due to NAFTA and its known detrimental impact on Mexico’s economy. Structural changes at the border perpetuated “femicides” – retaliatory killings, torture, rape, and kidnapping of women (Arriola and Raymond, 2017, p. 15). Mexico and the United States also experienced increased trafficking of drugs; trafficking that fuels the United States’ interest in militarizing police through legal policy changes due to the “War on Drugs” (Arriola and Raymond, 2017, p. 15). The expansion of the neoliberal agenda has fostered those same changes post-NAFTA in the Central American region, where mass migrations are more frequent due to social disorder and economic decline (Arriola and Raymond, 2017).
Arizona was the epicenter of tension around immigration to the United States. For instance, xenophobic politicians like former Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County led the nation to target and violate immigrants’ rights (Campbell, 2011). In 1996, Arizona policymakers linked driver’s licenses to birth certificates, so undocumented immigrants could not legally drive. In 2002, the promotion of English-only policies dominated Arizona schools. Prop 200 passed in 2004, making it impossible for undocumented immigrants to receive public benefits. Eventually, in 2006, Props 300, 100, and 102 passed to remove immigrants’ rights (Campbell, 2011). In 2007, the Arizona government enacted the 287(G) program, part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (American Immigration Council, 2020). This allowed state and local police officers to collaborate with the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that local law enforcement performs federal immigration agents’ functions. With immigration power granted to local police, Sheriff Joe Arpaio wasted no time in starting raids rounding up immigrants and racially profiling Latino people by asking for their papers. In 2008, employer sanctions were passed, which made it harder for undocumented immigrants to get jobs. In 2010, with the passage of SB1070, the most racist immigration law in the country, only those outside of Arizona were surprised (Campbell, 2011).
Ultimately, the Movimiento Puente/Puente Human Rights Movement, a grassroots organization, emerged in response to the human rights violations against immigrants due to Arizona’s antiimmigrant policies and practices. The Movimiento Puente formed both to educate immigrants regarding their rights and defend immigrants by protesting and organizing against the onslaught of anti-immigrant policies. Puente began by teaching people their rights, eventually establishing trust in the community due to its consistency in organizing movements. The movement empowered immigrant and undocumented communities to come out of the shadows and advocate for their rights. Puente has organized for over a decade, won many victories, and even helped change Arizona’s political landscape. Puente played a massive role in turning Arizona blue in the 2020 presidential election. In addition, the organization led a noncompliance campaign against SB1070 and launched a campaign that eventually shut down Pinal County Jail, an immigrant detention center. Puente led the removal of Sheriff Joe Arpaio after 19 years in office and successfully opened a class action suit against the Phoenix Police Department for its excessive use of force against activists at a Trump protest rally.
Building a Policy-Relevant Agenda for Tackling Issues Around Climate Migration
The lack of international protection granted to climate migrants reinforces the need to develop a compact for a shared understanding of migration’s shared responsibilities. Through the United Nations Charter and mirroring the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, states have committed to objectives that guide evidence-based policymaking, monitoring, evaluating, and implementing a comprehensive strategy for improving migration (McAdam, 2019). The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR] (n.d.) reports that 79.5 million individuals in 2019 experienced forced displacement due to various human rights violations. According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center [IDMC] (2020), at least 23.9 million people experienced weather-related movements, such as landslides, droughts, storms, floods, typhoons, wildfires, and extreme temperatures.
Despite the lack of effort from those unwilling to accept climate change impacts, these challenges will not subside without the institution of intentional policies and strategic actions. Vulnerable populations plagued with displacement due to the increased severity of extreme weather conditions are not considered in the detailed refugee status as defined by the 1951 Refugee Convention. Governments drafted the 1951 Convention to protect individuals fleeing persecution within Europe before January 1, 1951. The 1967 protocol omitted these limitations, ultimately leading to a universal approach. Even still, the definition of a refugee has not changed since its origination post-World War II to include individuals impacted by natural environmental causes that jeopardize the quality of life for vulnerable populations.
Environmental change and disasters can result in scarcity of resources like freshwater, food, and adequate shelter. Food insecurity tends to arise or increase in populations who are unable to cope and who surrender to displacement as a survival tactic (International Displacement Monitoring Center [IDMC], 2018). In this regard, migration signifies an adaptation mechanism to climate change and environmental degradation. IDMC highlights overwhelming slow-onset events that transition into rapid-onset events limit, and erode communities’ and ecosystems’ capacity to help populations withstand displacement (IDMC, 2018, p. 2). The Global Report on Internal Displacement (IDMC, 2020) proclaims that children under 15 represent 18.3 million internally displaced peoples (IDPs) and that 3.7 million IDPs are over 60 years old. From droughts and floods in Afghanistan to cyclones in Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe to devastating hurricanes in the Bahamas, around 1,900 disasters generated multitudes of displacement across at least 140 countries or territories in 2019 (IDMC, 2020, p. 4). In the end, intense circumstances as a result of climate change alter the lives of numerous communities.
Researchers’ and policymakers’ views remain contested as they pertain to the orchestration of effective policies and strategies that adequately address displaced communities’ hardships and experiences. Organizations such as UNCHR shy away from coining climate migrants as “climate refugees.” UNCHR claims that confusion arises from conflating the terms “climate” and “refugee” because a “climate refugee” does not exist in international law and because climate migrants are typically plagued by internal displacement before engaging in cross-border movement (UNCHR, 2020). Ionesco (2019), the head of the Migration Environment and Climate Change (MECC) Division at the International Organization for Migration (IOM), suggests that denoting the status of climate migrants to “climate refugees” overshadows the need to develop preventative measures and migration management policies like the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. The Global Compact recognizes the differences in legal frameworks that make the experiences of migrants and refugees distinct.
Relatedly, a strategic goal for AMI includes introducing an educational curriculum regarding challenges many forced migrants face as they try to integrate into countries. AMI believes that general messaging surrounding climate change’s impact on forced migration is a strategic mechanism needed to improve awareness and increase civic participation and other support. Whether vulnerable populations are facing cross-country migration or in-country displacement, general messaging explaining people’s dangerous circumstances as well as what caused them is critical. Also, establishing partnerships among networks and organizations is essential to gathering data from the grassroots level. These data could be used to influence and develop policies that would eliminate climate change’s negative impact.