Halla Al-Moradi – UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog

Yemen in the News? Let’s Recap.

In the past couple of months, Yemen has been mentioned a lot. More specifically, the Houthis or, as some have called them, Ansarallah. You might be wondering first, “What is Yemen?” Why are they being talked about? Who are the Houthis/Ansarallah? How is Saudi Arabia involved? And where is the government? These are all questions that I heard many people around me ask. So, in this article, we will answer all these questions as well as explain Yemen’s situation and wars coming from a Yemeni American.

HISTORY

Before diving into the issues concerning Yemen, we have to cover some important history of Yemen to have a full understanding. Yemen’s history can stretch back 3000 years and the biggest evidence of that is the architecture of the villages and towns in it. Yemen had three successive civilizations: Minean, Sabaean, and Himyarite.

Ancient Yemen played a crucial role in overland trade between Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Mediterranean civilizations due to its strategic location. Pre-Islamic trading kingdoms, such as Minaean and Saba’, thrived on incense trade. The decline began with the Romans favoring the Red Sea, leading to the loss of wealth for southern Arabian kingdoms.

The rise of Islam in the 7th century saw Yemen’s rapid conversion. Muslim caliphs ruled, followed by local dynasties like Zaydi imamate and Rasulids. The Ottoman Empire took control in the 16th century, bringing Yemen under their rule. Despite a flourishing coffee trade, Yemen remained culturally isolated.

The 19th century marked the division of Yemen into North and South, controlled by the Ottomans and British, respectively. North Yemen faced opposition, leading to the Ottoman evacuation in 1918. Two powerful imams ruled North Yemen until the 1962 revolution, resulting in the establishment of the Yemen Arab Republic (YAR).

The YAR faced internal conflicts and external interventions, including support from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. A coup in 1974 led to military rule under Colonel Ibrahim al-Hamdi. His assassination in 1977 and subsequent leaders set the stage for the lengthy presidency of Ali Abdullah Saleh, who ruled North Yemen until its unification with South Yemen in 1990.

TIMELINE OF YEMEN’S CONFLICT

Yemen’s modern history is a tumultuous journey marked by political transitions, civil wars, and external interventions. Understanding the dynamics of this complex narrative is crucial, especially for students seeking clarity amid the intricate details. Let’s embark on a journey through the early years of Yemen, focusing on key events involving President Ali Abdullah Saleh and the Houthi rebels.

In the 1990s, Yemen underwent a significant transformation with the reunification of North and South Yemen. Ali Abdullah Saleh, the president of North Yemen since 1978, transitioned to become the president of the Republic of Yemen. Concurrently, the Zaidi-Shia group Ansar Allah, commonly known as the Houthis, gradually gained power, with President Saleh’s tacit support. A brief civil war erupted in 1994 between the unintegrated armies of the north and south, resulting in the defeat of the southern army and solidifying Yemen’s reunification.

In 2000, President Saleh reached a border demarcation agreement with Saudi Arabia, seeking to disarm the Houthis, whom he had previously considered a valuable tool against Saudi interference. Tensions escalated between Saleh’s government and the Houthis, leading to a rebellion in 2004 initiated by Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi.

The conflict unfolded in several phases, with government crackdowns, rebellions, ceasefires, and amnesty grants. Saleh’s government faced sporadic clashes with the Houthis, and in 2010, Operation Scorched Earth aimed to crush the rebellion. The Houthis, however, persisted, engaging in cross-border clashes with Saudi forces.

Inspired by the Arab Spring, Yemen experienced widespread demonstrations in 2011, calling for an end to Saleh’s 33-year rule. Despite initial concessions, the protests intensified, leading Saleh to agree to a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)-brokered deal. However, clashes persisted until November 2011, when Saleh’s deputy, Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, assumed power.

The National Dialogue Conference in 2014 laid the groundwork for a new constitution, and a political transition plan was approved. However, anti-government protests erupted, leading to the dissolution of President Hadi’s cabinet. In 2014, the Houthis seized control of Sanaa, and by early 2015, they took over the Yemeni government, prompting President Hadi to flee.

In response to Houthi advances, a Saudi-led coalition initiated Operation Decisive Storm in 2015, launching indiscriminate airstrikes and imposing a naval blockade. Despite subsequent efforts like Operation Restoring Hope, the conflict escalated, leading to a dire humanitarian crisis. Yemen became a battleground, but not for what is being told. One of those example is Al-Mahra.

In the shadows of Yemen’s well-documented conflicts lies a lesser-known struggle for control in the easternmost governorate of Al-Mahra. While the global narrative often focuses on the Houthi rebellion and the Saudi-led coalition’s efforts, the intricate dynamics at play in Al-Mahra offer a unique perspective on regional power shifts and economic interests.

Since 2017, Al-Mahra residents have witnessed a gradual influx of Saudi troops, raising concerns and sparking anxiety among the local population. What initially seemed like a limited military presence evolved into a comprehensive campaign by Saudi Arabia to establish control over the governorate, extending its influence to the Omani border in the east.

The intensified Saudi presence in Al-Mahra, marked by establishing over 20 military bases and outposts, fueled speculations regarding the kingdom’s interest in constructing an oil pipeline. With a population of no more than 300,000, Al-Mahra became a battleground for what some believed was a strategic move to secure a pipeline route for Saudi crude oil to the Arabian Sea.

Leaked diplomatic cables from 2008 revealed Saudi Arabia’s longstanding interest in building a pipeline by securing territories and gaining the loyalty of local leaders. The Saudis went beyond military installations, recruiting Mahri locals and attempting to create their irregular military force. The transfer of Mahri tribes from Saudi Arabia to Al-Mahra further deepened suspicions, leading to clashes between Mahri tribes and Saudi engineering crews.

Saudi forces secured Nishtun port, raising suspicions that it could serve as the intended site for an oil export terminal. A leaked memo from 2018, thanking the Saudi ambassador for a feasibility study on an oil port, added fuel to the speculation. While not explicitly mentioning Al-Mahra, the memo heightened concerns and contributed to the belief that Saudi Arabia was preparing to extend an oil pipeline through Yemen.

Governaorates in Yemen — Governorates in Yemen.

Amidst these developments, skepticism arose, suggesting that Saudi deployments and tactics aimed to counter Oman’s influence in Al-Mahra. Tensions between Saudi Arabia and Oman, exacerbated by the Yemen war, saw Oman leveraging various factors, including granting citizenship and maintaining ties with Mahri political leaders, to resist Saudi influence. Publicly, Saudi Arabia claimed its troop deployments focused on combating Houthi arms smuggling.

Critics argue that the theory of a Saudi pipeline in Al-Mahra is implausible given Yemen’s entrenched political instability. Protecting a multi-billion dollar pipeline would pose significant challenges with ongoing conflicts, external pressures, and internal threats. Even before the 2011 uprising, reports suggested Yemen’s volatility made it unsuitable for such projects. Adding another layer to the complexity of this conflict.

International outrage grew over the humanitarian crisis, and in 2018, the US Senate invoked the War Powers Resolution to end its support for the Saudi-led coalition. The Stockholm Agreement in December 2018 aimed for a ceasefire, but peace remained elusive.

In February 2021, President Biden announced a shift in the US approach, revoking the Houthi FTO designation and ending support for the Saudi-led coalition’s offensive operations. Efforts toward peace continued, with UN-mediated talks and a two-month truce declared in April 2022.

NOW

Despite the recent peace agreement between the Houthi rebel group and the Saudi-led coalition, Yemen continues to make headlines due to the dire humanitarian situation and escalating conflicts. The so-called “peace” only involved the Houthi rebels and the coalition, leaving the rebel group in power and the Yemeni people still suffering. Let’s examines the recent events that have unfolded in Yemen, shedding light on the complexities of the situation.

By mid-2023, dissatisfaction with the Houthi rebels’ control began to rise among the Yemeni population. The rebels’ oppressive regime, characterized by restrictions on rights, exorbitant “protection” fees, and crippling economic conditions, fueled public discontent. However, the rebels cleverly diverted attention by exploiting the longstanding Yemeni support for Palestine. On December 9, the rebels announced their blockade of Israeli ships in the Red Sea, citing the ongoing situation in Gaza as the reason. This move united Yemenis, temporarily halting internal uprisings and garnering increased support for the rebel group.

In response to the rebel blockade, the US and UK coalitions initiated airstrikes on multiple Yemeni cities on January 11. The airstrikes were portrayed as retaliation for the rebels’ interference with ships due to the Gaza conflict. This military response effectively quashed any attempts at democracy, sparking anger and resentment among Yemenis who felt victimized by the international intervention.

The US-led coalition’s bombing campaign intensified, with the worst attack occurring on February 3. Many described it as more severe than previous assaults, even during the Saudi-led coalition’s offensive. The bombings targeted vital infrastructure, including one of Yemen’s international airports, resulting in halted flights, disrupted electricity, and widespread fear among the population.

Yemen, already grappling with eight years of conflict, faced an alarming humanitarian crisis. The World Food Programme (WFP) highlighted the unprecedented level of hunger, with 17 million Yemenis experiencing food insecurity. Child malnutrition rates were among the highest globally, and a significant portion of families lacked essential dietary elements. The WFP’s December 5 announcement of a pause in food distribution in the North due to funding shortages further worsened the situation.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres pleaded for de-escalation, urging all sides to avoid worsening the situation. Despite initial warnings and concerns expressed by global leaders, including President Joe Biden, the airstrikes persist, deepening the crisis in Yemen.

As Yemen grapples with the aftermath of international airstrikes, the fragile peace has shattered, leaving millions of Yemenis in an increasingly dire situation. The humanitarian crisis, exacerbated by disrupted food distribution and ongoing military actions, demands urgent attention and international cooperation to alleviate the suffering of the Yemeni people.

The Impact of Overturning Affirmative Action on Low-Income and First-Generation Students—and What Colleges Can Do to Move Forward

Tote Bags Path to Graduation First Gen Campus Green 241108-001-2861.jpg — Totes given out to students during a first generation college event at UAB. Source: UAB Image Gallery.

In 2023, the Supreme Court made a landmark decision to end race-based affirmative action in college admissions, stirring deep debates across the nation about equity, opportunity, and the role of higher education. While many view this decision as a step towards “merit-based” admissions, the change also raises significant concerns about how universities will maintain diverse and inclusive student bodies. This shift is particularly troubling for low-income and first-generation students, groups that historically face the highest barriers to accessing higher education.

Affirmative Action and Access: Why It Matters

For decades, affirmative action has played a crucial role in broadening access to higher education, particularly for marginalized and underrepresented groups. Low-income and first-generation students, many of whom come from minority backgrounds, often face multiple barriers in the admissions process, including limited academic preparation, financial constraints, and a lack of resources. Affirmative action policies have helped bridge these gaps, creating pathways for students who might otherwise be overlooked by traditional admissions standards.

Research supports the impact of affirmative action on promoting diversity and opportunity. For example, a study by Arcidiacono, Lovenheim, and Zhu (2014) found that affirmative action policies significantly increased enrollment for minority and low-income students at selective institutions, contributing to a more inclusive campus environment. Furthermore, studies like those by Bowen and Bok (1998) in The Shape of the River demonstrate that affirmative action has long-term benefits, improving career outcomes for beneficiaries and fostering broader societal advantages.

However, with the new ruling against race-based admissions, these pathways to opportunity are under threat. Without affirmative action, the risk is that colleges will revert to a status quo where students from privileged backgrounds have a disproportionate advantage, while low-income and first-generation students lose out on critical opportunities for social and economic mobility.

The Unique Challenges for Low-Income and First-Generation Students

Low-income and first-generation students are some of the most vulnerable to inequities in the admissions process. These students often attend under-resourced schools, where they have fewer Advanced Placement courses, extracurricular options, and college-preparatory resources. Financial constraints can further limit their ability to attend college tours, participate in extracurriculars, or afford costly application fees, creating an uneven playing field from the outset.

In states that have previously banned affirmative action, such as California and Michigan, minority enrollment at selective universities dropped significantly following the bans. The UC Office of the President (2016) reported that, after Proposition 209, African American and Latino enrollment at California’s top universities declined sharply. This pattern suggests that, without targeted policies, selective colleges may struggle to maintain a diverse student body, which is essential for fostering inclusive learning environments and preparing students for a multicultural workforce.

Moving Forward: Policy Alternatives

In light of the ruling, colleges must rethink their admissions strategies to continue supporting low-income and first-generation students. Below are some alternative policies and innovative practices that could help universities uphold diversity in a post-affirmative action era.

Socio-Economic-Based Affirmative Action

One promising approach is to focus on socio-economic affirmative action, which targets students from disadvantaged backgrounds regardless of race. Research by Reardon et al. (2018) suggests that socio-economic diversity can improve outcomes for underrepresented students, though it may not fully maintain racial diversity. Socio-economic-based policies could help address barriers faced by low-income students, providing them with the support and access they need to succeed in college.

Holistic Admissions Processes

Holistic admissions, which assess applicants based on a broad range of criteria beyond grades and test scores, offer another pathway for promoting diversity. By evaluating factors like personal background, leadership, community service, and resilience, colleges can better identify students who have overcome significant obstacles. This approach requires time and training but could help universities maintain a more inclusive admissions process. A study by Espenshade and Radford (2009) highlights the importance of looking beyond test scores, showing that holistic review can be an effective tool in creating diverse, dynamic student bodies.

Test-Optional Policies

Standardized tests like the SAT and ACT often disadvantage low-income and minority students, who may lack access to test preparation resources. Many universities have already adopted test-optional policies, and this trend is likely to continue. Research by Hoxby and Avery (2013) indicates that test-optional admissions can expand access for high-achieving, low-income students who otherwise might not apply to selective institutions. Removing or de-emphasizing test scores can reduce barriers for first-generation students and create a more level playing field.

Expanded Financial Aid and Support Services

To truly support low-income and first-generation students, universities must offer robust financial aid packages and ongoing support. Increased need-based scholarships, grants, and living stipends can make higher education more affordable, while services like academic advising, mentorship programs, and mental health resources can help students thrive once they’re on campus. According to Kahlenberg (2014), financial support is essential for retaining low-income students, who are more likely to face financial pressures that lead to dropping out.

Targeted Outreach and Recruitment

Finally, universities can increase their outreach efforts to underrepresented communities. Many low-income and first-generation students are unaware of the opportunities available to them at top institutions. By working with high schools, community organizations, and nonprofit groups, universities can help ensure that more students from disadvantaged backgrounds apply and are well-prepared for college life. Expanding outreach can also help address the “hidden supply” of talented, low-income students, as highlighted by Dynarski (2016) in her research on college access.

Conclusion: Upholding the Values of Diversity and Inclusion

The end of race-based affirmative action is a critical juncture for higher education in the United States. As colleges grapple with how to move forward, they must prioritize policies that will continue to support low-income and first-generation students. A commitment to diversity and inclusion in education not only benefits individual students but also strengthens society as a whole by fostering a more equitable and dynamic workforce. By adopting new, legally permissible approaches to admissions, colleges can uphold the spirit of affirmative action and ensure that higher education remains an accessible ladder of opportunity for all.

Reference Sheet

Arcidiacono, P., Lovenheim, M. F., & Zhu, M. (2014). “Affirmative Action and the Quality-Fit Tradeoff.” Journal of Economic Literature, 52(3), 493-517.
Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (1998). “The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions.” Princeton University Press.

Espenshade, T. J., & Radford, A. W. (2009). “No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life.” Princeton University Press.

Hoxby, C. M., & Avery, C. (2013). “The Missing ‘One-Offs’: The Hidden Supply of High-Achieving, Low-Income Students.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2013(1), 1-65.

Kahlenberg, R. D. (2014). “The Future of Affirmative Action: New Paths to Higher Education Diversity After Fisher v. University of Texas.” The Century Foundation.

Reardon, S. F., Weathers, E., Fahle, E., Jang, H., & Kalogrides, D. (2018). “What Levels the Playing Field Between High- and Low-Income Students?” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(4), 593-615.

UC Office of the President (2016). “Effects of Proposition 209 on California Higher Education.” UCOP Report.

Dynarski, S. M. (2016). “The Trouble with College Rankings.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(4), 167-190.

Long, M. C., & Tienda, M. (2008). “Winners and Losers: Changes in Texas University Admissions Post-Affirmative Action.” Education Next, 8(1), 70-76.

Anti-Arab Rhetoric in Turkey: A Growing Concern

Picture of a family in their home. — A Syrian family in Turkey. Source: Creative Commons.

In recent years, anti-Arab rhetoric has become increasingly visible in Turkey, fueled by complex socio-political and economic factors. Historically known as a bridge between East and West, Turkey has long been home to diverse communities, including Arabs, Kurds, Armenians, and Greeks. However, with the influx of Arab migrants and refugees, particularly following the Syrian Civil War, tensions have risen, sparking a disturbing trend of xenophobic and anti-Arab sentiments. This blog post explores the causes, manifestations, and implications of this rising anti-Arab rhetoric in Turkey.

Historical Context: Arab-Turkish Relations

The historical relationship between Turkey and Arab nations has been shaped by the Ottoman Empire, which governed much of the Arab world until the early 20th century. Following the empire’s collapse, nationalist movements in both Arab nations and Turkey drove a wedge between these communities. Fast forward to the 21st century, Turkey’s regional policies, particularly under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, have seen fluctuating alliances with Arab states. However, these geopolitical dynamics don’t fully explain the more recent wave of anti-Arab sentiment that has taken root within Turkey’s society.

The Syrian Refugee Crisis: A Catalyst for Tension

The Syrian Civil War, which began in 2011, triggered one of the largest refugee crises in modern history. As a neighboring country, Turkey quickly became a primary destination for Syrian refugees, with over 3.7 million currently residing within its borders, making it the largest host of refugees in the world. While Turkey initially welcomed refugees under a temporary protection regime, the prolonged nature of the conflict has strained public resources and tested the patience of local communities.

A 2018 report by the Brookings Institution noted that the economic impact of hosting such a large number of refugees, coupled with Turkey’s existing economic challenges, has led to growing resentment among Turkish citizens who feel that their job opportunities and resources are threatened by the refugee population (Brookings Institution, 2018). This economic strain has provided fertile ground for xenophobic rhetoric, with Arabs often scapegoated as the cause of Turkey’s economic difficulties.

Social Media and the Spread of Anti-Arab Narratives

The rapid spread of misinformation on social media has amplified anti-Arab sentiments in Turkey. As highlighted by a 2021 report from the International Crisis Group, various narratives falsely claim that Arabs receive preferential treatment in public services, occupy housing meant for Turkish citizens, and are unwilling to integrate into Turkish society (International Crisis Group, 2021). These stereotypes have fostered an environment in which Arabs, particularly Syrian refugees, are viewed as a cultural and economic threat.

Percentage of Arabic speakers in Turkey (including refugees) in 2018. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

Political Rhetoric: Nationalism and Populism Fueling Anti-Arab Sentiment

In Turkish politics, nationalist rhetoric has been a powerful tool, especially as economic conditions worsen. Leaders from opposition parties have frequently targeted the Arab refugee population, promising to repatriate Syrians if they gain power. Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, leader of the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), has often vocalized anti-refugee positions, claiming that refugees are an economic burden on Turkey (Al Jazeera, 2022). Such rhetoric not only gains traction among economically vulnerable citizens but also legitimizes anti-Arab sentiments within public discourse.

Erdogan’s government has adopted a dual approach—on one hand, maintaining its open-door policy for humanitarian reasons, and on the other, seeking to return a large number of Syrians to “safe zones” in northern Syria. While this policy has been touted as a solution to relieve the domestic pressure caused by the refugee crisis, critics argue that it is an attempt to appease nationalist sentiments and address domestic discontent with Arab communities (The New Humanitarian, 2023).

Cultural Xenophobia: Deepening Social Divides

Anti-Arab rhetoric in Turkey has also extended to cultural and social realms. Some Turkish citizens argue that the presence of Arabic language signs, the establishment of Arab-owned businesses, and cultural differences signal a broader threat to Turkish identity. A study published in Ethnic and Racial Studies observed that Arabs in Turkey face discrimination in housing, employment, and social interactions due to these perceived cultural differences (Yıldız & Sayın, 2021).

Media outlets have also been complicit in promoting anti-Arab stereotypes. Sensationalized reports frequently link Arab residents to crime and social disorder, further entrenching negative perceptions. This cultural xenophobia has led to an alarming increase in hate crimes against Arab communities, with physical and verbal assaults reported in various cities across Turkey (Human Rights Watch, 2023).

The Impact of Anti-Arab Rhetoric on Turkey’s Social Fabric

The rise of anti-Arab rhetoric has serious implications for Turkey’s social cohesion. As anti-Arab sentiments continue to rise, both Turkish nationals and Arab residents find themselves divided along ethnic and cultural lines, leading to an environment where distrust and hostility overshadow potential cooperation and understanding.

Addressing the Issue: The Need for Inclusive Policies

To address anti-Arab sentiment, Turkey must adopt more inclusive policies that recognize and address the legitimate concerns of both Turkish citizens and Arab residents. Policymakers should prioritize efforts to improve economic conditions for all residents and counter misinformation. Additionally, fostering intercultural dialogue and promoting positive narratives about diversity could help to alleviate existing tensions.

Turkey’s future as a multicultural society depends on its ability to overcome the challenges posed by anti-Arab rhetoric. By embracing inclusive policies and promoting social unity, Turkey can transform the current wave of xenophobia into an opportunity for growth and resilience.

References

– Al Jazeera. (2022). Turkish opposition leader Kılıçdaroğlu reiterates call to send Syrian refugees home. Retrieved from [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/10/turkish-opposition-leader-urges-syrian-refugees-return-home](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/10/turkish-opposition-leader-urges-syrian-refugees-return-home)

– Brookings Institution. (2018). The Syrian refugee crisis and its impact on Turkey’s economy. Retrieved from [https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-syrian-refugee-crisis-and-its-impact-on-turkeys-economy](https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-syrian-refugee-crisis-and-its-impact-on-turkeys-economy)

– Human Rights Watch. (2023). Rising xenophobia in Turkey’s cities: Arabs face mounting hostility. Retrieved from [https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/07/24/rising-xenophobia-turkey](https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/07/24/rising-xenophobia-turkey)

– International Crisis Group. (2021). Social media misinformation and xenophobia in Turkey. Retrieved from [https://www.crisisgroup.org/europe-central-asia/western-europemediterranean/turkey/social-media-xenophobia-turkey](https://www.crisisgroup.org/europe-central-asia/western-europemediterranean/turkey/social-media-xenophobia-turkey)

– The New Humanitarian. (2023). Turkey’s plans for ‘safe zones’ in Syria: Solution or populist promise? Retrieved from [https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news/2023/03/16/turkey-safe-zone-syria-solution-or-populist-promise](https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news/2023/03/16/turkey-safe-zone-syria-solution-or-populist-promise)

– Yıldız, E., & Sayın, M. (2021). Arab Refugees in Turkey: Discrimination and Social Integration. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 44(3), 489-507.

A Human Rights Analysis of American Immigration Policy

In 1948, in the aftermath of World War II, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), a landmark document outlining fundamental human rights that should be universally protected. Among its articles are rights to life, liberty, security, family unity, and asylum from persecution. While these principles are intended to apply universally, immigration policies worldwide often fall short of these ideals. The American immigration system, among others, has come under scrutiny for policies and practices that many argue are inconsistent with UDHR principles.

This blog post examines key areas where U.S. immigration policy diverges from the UDHR’s protections, highlighting the need for reform in pursuit of a fairer, more human-centered immigration system.

The Right to Asylum: A Challenge to UDHR Compliance

UDHR Article 14 states, “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” The U.S. has historically been a beacon of hope for individuals fleeing war, persecution, and violence. However, recent policies have made it increasingly difficult for asylum seekers to access the American legal system.

The Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), often referred to as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, exemplify these challenges. Under MPP, asylum seekers from Latin America are often required to wait in Mexico until their immigration hearings in the U.S., facing dangerous conditions and inadequate access to legal counsel. Reports by Human Rights Watch noted that many asylum seekers awaiting their hearings face violence, abuse, and severe lack of resources in border towns. This situation not only hinders asylum seekers’ right to a fair hearing but also disregards their basic safety—a violation of both Article 14 and Article 3, which promises everyone “the right to life, liberty, and security of person.”

Family Separation: Violating the Right to Family Unity

Under UDHR Article 16, “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.” However, the “zero-tolerance” policy, implemented in 2018, resulted in the separation of thousands of children from their parents at the U.S. southern border. Over 5,000 children were separated from their families in just a few months, with many children experiencing trauma and psychological harm as a result.

While the Biden administration has made efforts to reunite some families, the underlying issues persist. Prolonged detention of families in immigration facilities and inconsistent policies on reunification highlight a system that does not prioritize family unity, contradicting Article 16’s guarantee of family protection.

The Right to Liberty and Security of Person: Detention Practices

The U.S. immigration system has increasingly relied on detention as a standard response to undocumented migration, often holding individuals—including families and children—for extended periods in detention facilities. The conditions in many of these facilities have raised serious human rights concerns, particularly regarding overcrowding, lack of medical care, and poor sanitation.

UDHR Article 3 states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.” Yet reports from organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) document cases where detainees have faced severe abuse and inadequate healthcare. A 2019 report by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General highlighted that detainees in some facilities were denied access to medical care, leading to cases of severe illness and even death. This over-reliance on detention and the documented neglect of detainee welfare starkly contradicts the UDHR’s provisions for humane treatment.

Economic Exploitation and the Right to Work

UDHR Article 23 enshrines the right to work, to free choice of employment, and to just and favorable conditions of work. However, undocumented immigrants in the U.S. often face exploitation in the labor market due to their legal status. They may be forced to work in unsafe conditions, for wages below the minimum standard, and without the protection of basic labor rights.

The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) highlights that many undocumented workers are subject to labor abuses without the ability to report them, fearing deportation if they speak out.. This situation contravenes the UDHR’s guarantee of fair working conditions and underscores the vulnerability that arises from an immigration status that does not provide pathways to legal work authorization.

Rethinking Immigration for a Human Rights-Centered Future

The UDHR was crafted to embody the rights and dignity that every individual is entitled to, irrespective of nationality, legal status, or economic contribution. For the U.S., a nation that played a central role in the UDHR’s creation, upholding these principles within its immigration system would signify a commitment to its foundational values.

Reforming U.S. immigration policy to align with the UDHR would require shifts at every level: ensuring fair and accessible asylum procedures, ending family separation, prioritizing alternatives to detention, and protecting labor rights for all workers, regardless of immigration status. Such changes would not only bring the U.S. closer to the UDHR’s standards but also foster an immigration system that respects human dignity and acknowledges the inalienable rights of all individuals.

Why Our Criminal Justice System Is Working So Well

The justice system is working perfectly. It’s doing exactly what it was designed to do.

The withholding of information by prosecutors violating the Brady Rule, the failure to investigate other potential suspects, and a lawyer who failed to follow a potential alibi are some ways that the justice system convicted Adnan Syed of the murder of Hae Min Lee. Adnan spent 23 years in prison after a jury found him guilty of the murder of his ex-girlfriend. His sentence was recently vacated, and DNA evidence exonerated him. AFTER MORE THAN TWO DECADES! What went wrong? The jury believed that he was guilty, which means that the jury was convinced that he murdered her. So how come he is now walking free after 23 years?

First, let’s look at Maryland’s Attorney General Marilyn Mosby and what she had to say. In her press release, she stated that since the prosecutors failed to turn over evidence for two other suspects which could have changed the course of the trial, the Brady Rule was violated. So what is this Brady Rule that keeps coming up? This rule goes back to the case Brady v. Maryland in which the Supreme Court “requires that prosecutors fully disclose to the accused all exculpatory evidence in their possession”. There is also the fact that there was a DNA sample that wasn’t tested until very recently. The third and most important thing is that the prosecution’s evidence relied on two things, one being their ‘key witness’ Jay Wilds and the other being the cell phone data that backed up Jay’s confession of helping Adnan bury Hae’s body. While AT&T published a notice – during the trial – that incoming calls are not reliable information to pin a location, the prosecution still used this as evidence, stating that even if the witness lied, the data doesn’t. This is now considered controversial evidence as the data isn’t truly reliable. Other than the cell phone data and Jay’s testimony, the prosecutors had nothing. With all of that presented to Baltimore City Judge Melissa Phinn by State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby and the Sentencing Review Unit, Judge Phinn granted the motion to vacate the conviction of Adnan Syed. The judge gave the state of Maryland the option of proceeding with a new trial within 30 days of such ruling (the 30 days has since passed and he is now presumed innocent due to the DNA testing that was FINALLY done).

All this happened due to the publicity from the hit podcast “Serial” and the help of other criminal justice reforms that happened in Baltimore. After 23 years, Adnan is free. But what about the cases that do not get public attention through a podcast or other publicity for that matter? How many others, just like Adnan, are convicted due to the violation of the Brady rule? Or for simply not investigating other potential suspects? A new study done by the National Registry of Exonerations states that of wrongful convictions in 2020, 54% were due to “misconduct by the government”, 34% due to misconduct by the police, and 30% due to misconduct by prosecutors. According to Georgia’s Innocence Project, 1 out of 20 criminal cases “results in a wrongful conviction”. This goes against the advice of one of America’s founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin: “it is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer.”

Why are we neglecting this advice? Many lives are being stolen due to wrongful conviction of crimes that are small yet heavily punished or thrown into prison as a result of these shortcuts the Justice system takes. Often these injustice acts are directed towards black and brown individuals where America is the leading prison population due to the country’s way of approaching punishment which “often lacks a public safety rationale, disproportionately affects minorities, and inflicts overly harsh sentences”. America, unlike other countries, uses prison as a “one-size-fits-all solution to crime”, which means America prosecutes people who are not a public safety problem and often punish those people in a harsher and more damaging way than is truly justified. When did this start? Mass incarceration has been a huge problem in America since the civil war, however, we saw a huge rise in the prison population in the 1970s after Nixon’s “war on drugs” campaign which mostly targeted black individuals. This campaign used both fear and “racial rhetoric” in order to further this ‘movement.’ Under Nixon, we saw a rise in the prison population, however, under Reagan, it was an explosion. When Reagan took office “the total prison population was 329,000” and when he left the population was at 627,000 which is double the starting number. To put it more in perspective, according to the Brennan Center in 2003, for every 100,000 residents, 710 would be incarcerated, and according to the Vera report in 2015, 55% of incarcerated people are either black or brown. This all goes back to the loophole in the 13th Amendment “which abolished slavery and indentured servitude except as a punishment for a crime”, which took effect after the civil war and till now. So there is a a root problem, which is why the justice system is not broken in any way. It was created to harshly convict black and brown individuals. Evidence of such is the data collected in 2010 Prison Policy Initiative study which stated that for every 100,000 residents, 2,306 black individuals are incarcerated versus the 450 white individuals incarcerated.

Now that we established the existence of such issue, what can we so about it? Discussions are taking place and changes too; after the death of George Floyd, many people voiced out their concerns, this pushed “the Center for American Progress, the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and the Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation” to “virtually [gather] 1,000 advocates, researchers, artists, and practitioners for the Innovations Conference, a multiday exploration of what it means to reimagine public safety and shrink the footprint of the justice system.” There is a problem within the roots of the justice system, hence the need to “work to root out the systemic racism ingrained in the criminal justice system” that has affected people of color. This can be established, by starting with ending unnecessarily harsh punishments; for example, “Black Americans are nearly four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession and six times more likely to be incarcerated for drug charges than their white counterparts”. Another approach can be taken, by rooting out any racial inequality within the justice system; for example, California passed multiple bills “that will address discriminatory practices within jury selection, prohibit prosecutors from seeking convictions or sentences on the basis of defendants’ race or ethnicity, and lay the groundwork for reparations for the Black community”, and by removing the barriers that affect individuals with a criminal record as it disqualifies these people from “voting, obtaining business or occupational licenses, accessing employment and housing, receiving public assistance, and participating in other key elements of civic life”. Another way of helping is by investing in programs such as “child care and education, access to affordable housing, and other supportive services” since they are proven to create strong and safe neighborhoods. As individuals, we can help by voting, spreading awareness, and simply by putting these issues on the table for discussion. Barriers are destroyed through discussion.